This OCR text has been imported without a page scan and contains errors and page headers. You can help by finding and uploading a page scan, or correcting the errors.

This text has been imported with broken footnotes. They are in the middle of the prose, likely as *4, [4] or simple 4.

If you'd like to help, please place the text of the footnote inside the tags <ref>In this instance, the Lieutenant is referring to the woman's child.</ref>, and move it to the proper place in the text. Then add {{Footnotes}} to the very bottom of the page.

The old legislation in the so-called Decalogue of J (Ex. 34:18-26 : see DECALOGUE) and in E (Ex. 23:14-16) gives the first place among the great feasts of the year to the feast of unleavened bread

Many scholars, however, regard Ex. 34:18, the verse of primary importance in connection with the present subject, as not original (see for example Steuernagel on Dt. 16:1). According to Steuernagel J knows nothing of a feast of unleavened bread (massoth) but only (v. 25) of a passover festival in which the firstlings of the herd and of the flock were sacrificed. Even on literary grounds, however, we cannot accept this view. According to v. 23 J knows of three annual festivals. If v. 18 is deleted only two of these are named and the third distinguished only by the character of its offerings. The structure of v. 23, however, quite plainly presupposes that this last also has been named, and that, too, in the first place and before v. 19. We .shall have to suppose, accordingly, that originally the passover festival was named in v. 18, which according to J also had reference to the Exodus, and that at a later date the massoth festival was introduced in its place from Ex.23. No substantial reason for such a correction can be suggested ; for the idea of seeking to supersede the passover festival by the massoth festival could never have occurred to anyone ; nor yet can the purely literary motive - that of bringing into line with Ex. 23:14-15 - be alleged here, for as will be shown immediately it is Ex. 23:14-16 that has been itself corrected, or, let us say, supplemented by the addition of vv. 17-18 and thus again brought into agreement with J. Finally, it is exceedingly doubtful whether in Ex. 34:25 (J) the name pesah for the festival in question is original (see below, 7) ; if it is an insertion, it is doubly difficult to understand why it should previously have been deleted in v. 18. The tendency of the redaction, as of the whole development, is much rather in the direction of placing the passover, as distinguished from the feast of unleavened read, more and more in the foreground (see below, 12-13).

On the questions as to whether Ex. 23:14-19 belongs to the Book of the Covenant and to E generally, and as to the relations between these verses and Ex. 34:18-26, no agreement has as yet been arrived at. It is often supposed that the passage in the Book of the Covenant is not original but a later introduction from J (Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch, 52-53, 99-100; Kautzsch, HS ; and others). Ex. 23:14-19, however, is not a unity ; vv. 14-16 are to be held separate from vv. 17-19. This appears immediately from a comparison of vv. 14 and 17, which are doublets though they do not say quite the same thing. Still more clearly does this appear when the phraseology is compared with that of J. Vv. 17-19 are, apart from the absence of the word pesah, word for word coincident with Ex. 34:23, 34:25-26 ; vv. 15-16, on the other hand, diverge from J not only by their omission of the precept about firstlings but also expressly by their designations of the festival in v. 16, whilst v. 14 is altogether absent from J. Thus, whilst there is everything to suggest that vv. 17-19 are taken from J, vv. 14-16 cannot possibly have come from that source, but must belong to E. In the present case, therefore, it is E that has been subsequently brought into conformity with J by introduction of the precepts of vv. 17-19, which were foreign to the original law. If this be so, we must go back for the form of these verses to their original form in Ex. 34:23-24 - in other words, the name pesah was not originally used in Ex. 34:25. In taking over the verses nothing, it is certain, was changed, for the very object of the transference was to correct E in accordance with J.

The name of the feast of 'unleavened bread' (^ri niva.ii fopTT] TUI> d^vfj.wv [Lk. 22:1, Jos. BJ 2:12], ^ue pat r(av d^vfj.(av [Acts l2:3, 20:6], festus [or dies] asymorum) has reference to the massoth 1 which were eaten while the festival lasted. For the meaning of the feast in the passages just cited we must look to the connection with the two other great annual feasts - that of 'weeks' and that of the 'ingathering' - in which it is there found. These last are quite unmistakably connected with husbandry (see PENTECOST; also TABERNACLES, i). This establishes an antecedent probability that the third feast also had the same underlying idea - was, in fact, the festival of the beginning of harvest. The date, in the month of Abib - though no doubt it may have been a later addition to the law points to the same conclusion. This interpretation of the feast conies still more clearly to the front in Dt., where the law as regards all three festivals is (Dt. 16:16-17) that the celebrants 'shall not appear before Yahwe empty-handed ; every man shall give as he is able according to the blessing which Yahwe thy God has given thee'. The offerings of the massoth festival are thus, according to D, thank-offerings for harvest blessings just as are those of the other great feasts. Dt. 16g tells us, more precisely, that the massoth festival was the festival of putting the sickle to the standing corn. It fixes the date of the feast of weeks, so called because celebrated seven weeks after massoth (see PENTECOST, i), by the formula 'seven weeks shall thou number unto thee from the time that thou beginnest to put the sickle to the standing corn' ; cp also Lev. 23:15, where the day from which these seven weeks are to be reckoned is still more accurately fixed (see below, 14). That its relation to the harvest was not incidental merely is shown by the ritual of the feast, as still presented in Lev. 23:9 (H), by which the people are enjoined to bring a sheaf of the first fruits with sacrifices on the day after the first Sabbath of harvest (see below, 14). Before this date it was not lawful to eat either bread or parched corn or fresh ears (v. 14). This offering of the first fruit sheaf is so fully regarded as the characteristic and main rite of the festival, and the day of its presentation as that of the proper feast, that the seven weeks to Pentecost are reckoned from it (v. 15).

The characteristic custom of eating only unleavened bread at the festival is thus explained easily and naturally. The massoth are upon the same plane with the parched corn (^Si, kali, see FOOD, i), a favourite food during harvest (cp Ruth 2:14, Lev. 23:14), the use of which at this season still survives in Palestine. In the midst of the labours of the harvest-field, when the first barley sheaves were being reaped, people did not take time to wait for the slow process of leavening the dough, but baked their bread from unleavened dough, just as at other times unleavened cakes were wont to be baked when time pressed (cp Gen. 18:6, 19:3 ). In Ex. 12:33+: [J] also the practice of eating massoth and the customs connected therewith are traced back to the Exodus, and the narrative still retains the right conception of this unleavened bread as being bread of haste. In Josh. 5:1-2, where the first passover of the Israelites in Western Palestine is described, the eating of unleavened bread is mentioned in conjunction with that of parched corn as both belonging to the festival : it is the first of the fruit of the land to be eaten after that has been sanctified by the preceding pesah ; henceforth the manna ceases and the people live on the produce of the land.

Thus the meaning of the festival in all its details becomes transparent ; of the new harvest nothing was eaten until a consecration sheaf had been presented to Yahwe and thus the whole crop had been sanctified (see TAXATION). This once done, no time was lost in proceeding to enjoy God's gift. The only point about which any uncertainty can still be felt is as to whether the presentation of a sheaf at the sanctuary, mentioned in Lev. 23:10, is the oldest form of the celebration, or whether perhaps the consecration gift did not originally consist of unleavened barley cakes. The latter view is suggested by the parallel case in which unleavened wheaten cakes were presented at the close of the harvest at pentecost (Lev. 23:17 ; cp PENTECOST, 3); as also by the fact that in later times there still subsisted the custom of presenting to Yahwe, as a meal-offering of the firstfruits, 'corn in the ear parched with fire, bruised corn of the fresh ear' (Lev. 2:14). There is also a more general consideration which tends to the same result ; in the oldest period we find the usual gifts to the deity consisting of various kinds of food, and these in the form in which the human offerers were in the habit of using them ; leavened bread, wine, oil, boiled flesh. The offering was a meal for the deity - the 'food of Yahwe', as the expression still runs in Lev. 3:11 (cp Benzinger, HA 432-433 ; also SACRIFICE). When accordingly the old law of Ex. 34:18 lays special stress upon the eating of unleavened bread, the sacrificial presentation of massoth at this festival may almost be assumed as a matter of course. In process of time a more delicate material was preferred ; unleavened bread was presented instead of leavened, and in many cases the place of bread is altogether taken by meal (Benz. HA 450-451). The substitution of a first-fruit sheaf for the massoth would admit of ready explanation from the course of this development.

In what has been said we have at the same time reached a secure conclusion as to the origin of the massoth festival. As a harvest feast with the ritual presentation of first-fruits of the barley harvest, the feast of massoth presupposes agriculture and a settled life in Canaan. Elsewhere (see FEASTS, 3) expression has been given to the conjecture that massoth, as well as the other feasts, was of Canaanitish origin. We have, it is true, no direct evidence of the existence among the Canaanites of any such spring festival ; but a thanksgiving harvest festival is attested in Judg. 9:27, and to presume a corresponding festival at the beginning of harvest is not too hazardous. The Israelites themselves, as will be shown immediately (7), brought with them out of the wilderness an entirely different festival which they subsequently combined with that of massoth. The very fact that their passover was not changed into a harvest festival, that the harvest festival as an independent feast was combined with the passover, points conspicuously to the conclusion that this spring festival was not an institution which the Israelites had developed on their own account - that it had been found by them when they came, and taken over by them, as an old-established custom. They learned all the practices of agriculture from the Canaanites, and so also in the forefront of these the custom of presenting to the deity their tribute of the produce of the soil. Elsewhere (PENTECOST, 6) the conjecture is offered that originally perhaps the Canaanites and the Israelites had only one harvest festival in spring, with the meaning just indicated, and that this spring festival divided itself into two only in the course of the subsequent development.

It is obvious that, thus interpreted, the massoth festival could not originally have been connected with any definite day. In the ancient ordinances of J and E, referred to at the beginning of this article (1), it is assigned, in a quite general way, simply to the month Abib ( 'green-ears month', or 'harvest month' 1 ). Neither is it a festival celebrated in common by the entire people at once. In Palestine harvest falls at very different dates according to the locality.

In the Jordan valley it may occasionally begin as early as in the end of March, and normally in the beginning of April ; in the hill country and on the coast it falls, on an average, some eight to ten days later, whilst in the colder and more elevated districts, such as those about Jerusalem, it may be even three or four weeks later. Cp AGRICULTURE, i.

Thus, the feast of the beginning of harvest was cele brated at very different dates at the various sanctuaries throughout the land ; but in every case it was celebrated as a hag - i.e. , as a mirthful festival with dances and processions and joyous sacrificial meal (see FEASTS). As distinguished from the family festivals, properly so called, which were celebrated within the domestic circle, and from the clan festivals which were attended only by the members of the clan, this festival was, like the two other great feasts of the year, a public one which brought together the entire community of the place. Hence also the precept in J, that all the males are to appear before Yahwe. An appearance 'before Yahwe' could not be made at every village or on every bamah (see HIGH-PLACE) where perchance some sacrifice had at one time or another been offered ; it could be made only at one of the greater sanctuaries where there was a beth Yahwi, a 'house of Yahwe' of some sort, with an ephod or other sacred object, as, for example, at Shiloh. In the older time, it is true, pilgrimage was wont to be made only once a year to such a sanctuary (1 S. 1:3) ; in this respect therefore the precept of J expresses not the oldest prevailing custom but a later development.

Alongside of this explanation of the feast as a harvest one, there arose also, at a comparatively early date, another which interpreted it as commerorative of the Exodus. In Ex. 34:18, indeed, the more precise specification of the date of celebration ( 'in the month Abib, for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt' ) is by many scholars attributed to the deuteronomic redaction (Wellh. CH 2:331-334 ; in this case the same will apply to Ex. 23:15). Still, even should this be so, the fact remains that J {1} in Ex. 12:34 relates how the Israelites in the hurry of their departure had no time to leaven their dough but had to carry it with them, unleavened, in their kneading troughs. The reference here to the massoth festival and its characteristic feature is unmistakable. Thus in the addition to Ex. 34:18 substantially all that can be attributed to D is merely the extension of the celebration over a period of seven days.

In the preceding paragraphs the massSth festival has been, so far, disposed of; not so the entire spring festival as it had come to be celebrated at the beginning of harvest, even at so early a date as that of the old legislation. For this spring festival, as is explained elsewhere (FEASTS, 2) had belonging to it another integral part, with another name, other rites, and another meaning - to wit, the feast of the passover.

In the old legislation of E (Ex. 23:14-16) this latter feast is not expressly mentioned by the name passover. In the festal legislation of J (Ex. 34), the passover feast is indeed named in v. 25, but only by a later interpolation (see above, 1). It would be premature to conclude that the thing itself, or even the name, was not known till the time of D. In D's ordinance (Dt. 16:1-2, 16:5+) what has to be regarded as an innovation upon previous custom is undoubtedly the injunction not to keep the passover at home, since it is accompanied by the pre sentation of offerings such as is lawful only at the sanctuary. What has to be offered is indicated only vaguely (sheep and cattle), the amount being left undetermined. For greater precision we may turn to the precept of J (Ex. 34:19-20), where in immediate connection with the appointment of the massoth festival in the month Abib the sacrifice of the firstlings of cattle and the redemption of the human firstborn is enjoined. The existence of a real inner connection between the festival and the offering of the firstborn is attested by Ex. 13:12-13, a passage which is perhaps older than Dt. , and at any rate has been heavily redacted in a deuteronomic sense. There the offering of the firstborn is explained by reference to the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt and the sparing of the firstborn of Israel at the Exodus.

1 True, the assignment of this passage to J is not undisputed ; it is assigned also to E. The case is not substantially altered, however, by this ; it makes relatively but little difference in point of time whether we decide that the view in question first finds expression in J or in E.

On the strength of these various indications the passover is accordingly now explained by the majority of modern scholars (W. R. Smith, RS 463-464; Wellh. Prol (*}, 86-87, Nowack, HA 2:147, and others) as a sacrifice of the firstlings of the herd. Dt. undoubtedly also has this view of the meaning of the festival, and therefore finds it unnecessary to say anything further as to the offerings to be offered. So also J, who for the same reason does not require to mention the passover expressly at all alongside of the massoth festival, but regards it as coincident with the festival of spring. In the case of E, on the other hand, it is possible to ask whether this is really his view. Here we have rather, as regards the offerings of firstlings of the herd, the quite differently conceived precept (Ex. 22:29b) that these animals are in each case to be given to Yahwe on the eighth day after birth. In view of this it has been suggested (e.g., by Nowack, HA 2147 n. ) that this regulation is a later addition, in accordance with Lev. 22:27, made when passover and sacrifice of firstlings had at last come to be completely separated (see below, 15). The possibility, however, that E should indeed have been acquainted with the passover, yet not with the passover as the feast of the sacrifice of the firstborn but only in a different meaning, and that this is the reason why he does not cite it at all as belonging to the three great harvest festivals, must be left open.

This view of the festival as being the sacrifice of the firstborn does not, however, give any satisfying explana tion of its origin. For the inferences usually drawn in this connection from the meaning of the festival seem on other grounds to be insecure. It is usually assumed that the sacrifice of the firstborn of the herd means for a pastoral people quite the same thing as the offering of the firstfruits of the field in the case of an agricultural people, and that therefore also this passover festival reaches back into the primitive period of Israel's history before the settlement in Canaan. A trace of this is found in Ex. 10:9 and in other passages of similar import (in J and in E), where it is related that the custom of holding a spring feast to Yahwe gave the occasion for the Exodus. In these passages, however, an essential point is left out - namely, the proof that an offering of firstborn was here in question.

Wellhausen (as above) has sought to show this from the con nection of the entire narrative of JE, interpreting the course of the thought as follows : 'Yahwe has a claim to the human first born in Israel (who are to be redeemed) and to the firstborn of cattle. The Egyptians hinder Israel from offering the firstborn to Yahwe ; in compensation for this privation Yahwe takes to himself all the firstborn of Egypt'. If it is afterwards said that the passover is observed in commemoration of this act of God, all that is meant is that the passover is in full harmony with that old festival and continues it.

Such a connection, however, of the early spring festival with the passover, and of both with the idea of a sacrifice of firstborn, is by no means necessarily implied in the text itself, however well it may harmonise with it, and it will therefore have to be given up as soon as from more general considerations it is found to be improbable. Considerations of this sort are set forth with some fulness elsewhere (TAXATION). Of chief importance is what W. R. Smith (tfS 1 ?) 463) has emphasised - that the idea of a payment of tribute, a due to the deity such as finds expression in the offering of the firstlings, is wholly foreign to the original worship of Israel, and did not arise till after the settlement in Canaan. A yearly offering of the firstborn in which this idea is expressed is thus quite improbable for the earliest period. Robertson Smith, it is true, has sought, in order to escape this difficulty, to explain the offering of the firstborn of cattle in a wholly different way, namely from the sacred (taboo) character attaching to the first birth. That, however, is quite superfluous labour, for we have no evidence of any other offerings of firstborn from the time before the immigration besides the passover itself, and in the case of the passover there are further reasons - to be mentioned immediately ( 9) - which make this very explanation impossible for the period in question.

Neither does the parallel with the Arabian spring festival compel us to adopt the explanation of the passover as a sacrifice of firstborn.

Formerly Ewald (Alt.* 467) and more recently W. R. Smith (RSW 227 f. 465) connected the passover with the yearly offering of the 'atair among the ancient Arabians in the month Rajab which corresponds to the spring month Abib. It is, however, by no means absolutely certain that in the case of this Arabian sacrifice we are dealing at all with a regular sacrifice of firstborn, even if it be the case that in Arabia the time of bearing is in spring (W. R. Smith, as above).

Even if, therefore, at the time of D and even earlier, the passover was unhesitatingly regarded as an offering of the firstborn, we still have no evidence of the existence of such an offering for the period before the immigration, nor can it be established as a probability. Much rather is it probable that the custom of offering the firstlings was only a secondary extension of the practice of offering the fruits of the field. If therefore the passover was an ancient Hebrew festival, as Ex. 12:21-27 and all Israelite tradition assume, it must have had another meaning.

In order to see that it had another meaning we have only to turn to the characteristic ritual of the pesah festival, which has no appropriateness in connection with a celebration of the offering of first-fruits and does not admit of explanation by means of this conception. The ritual, as prescribed in Ex. 12:21-27, is as follows :- The Israelites are to take a sheep (son, fa ; vpo^arov ; Vg. animai) according to their families and kill it as the passover (npsn). Then with a bunch of 'hyssop' some of the blood is to be struck upon the lintel and door-posts - the sign for [the angel of] Yahwe (see DESTROYER) of an Israelite dwelling. This is to be observed as an ordinance for ever.

The age and literary constitution of this passage has been much discussed (cp Budde, ZATW 11:197-198 [1891]). Whilst some maintain it to be old and assign it to J, others (e.g., Wellhausen) regard it as of late date and an appendix to the preceding narrative of P. Here also, however, the literary question is again unimportant, for in substance the ritual is certainly more ancient than that given in Ex. 12:2-20 [P]. For in P the rite that is to be kept up consists in the eating of the paschal lamb (Hb; npofiaTov , agnus), for which minute directions are given, whilst the sprinkling of the lintel and door-posts with the blood is relegated to a quite subordinate place. In Ex. 12:21-27, on the other hand, the chief emphasis is laid precisely upon this sprinkling as the rite to be repeated every year, and the eating of thej sacrificial flesh is not enjoined at all; plainly, with the framer of this law it did not require to be mentioned, being regarded as quite a matter of course.

There can, however, be no doubt that this rite as depicted in Ex. 12:21-22 was very old, even although there is no mention of it elsewhere in J, E, and D. Practices of this kind can never have been the free inventions of a later time ; indeed, the whole rite from the point of view of P and the later age was obviously something weird and unintelligible. In P ceremonies with sacrificial blood can be performed only by the priest and at the sanctuary, not in private houses by laymen ; and this is the reason why P represents the entire ceremony as valid only for the first passover in Egypt, and makes the celebration for all subsequent time to consist in the solemn eating of the paschal lamb.

Obviously, the rite in question can have nothing whatever to do with the conception of an offering of first-fruits, and has to be explained, if explained at all, in some other way. The narrative itself in Ex. 12:21-22 offers the explanation we need. Here the sprinkling with the blood is represented as the means by which the Israelites were protected from the Destroyer.

The narrative will also have it that the name pesah comes from pasah because 'Yahwe will pass over ( npSl) the door, and will not suffer the Destroyer to come into your houses' (v. 23). On this view the passover was not originally a regular spring festival, but rather a solemn observance by which it was sought to gain protection in times of pestilence and the like (so also Marti, Gesch. Israelit. Rel. t^i 40-41). The idea lying at its foundation is quite the same as in the case of sacrifice in general ; by means of the blood-rite is to be re-established that close fellowship with the deity by which just at such times as these the most effective protection is secured. The sprinkling of the blood upon the door-posts and lintel rather than elsewhere may perhaps have had its origin in the thought that there the household gods whose protection it was sought to secure had their seat. The ceremony observed in the case of the slave who voluntarily chose to continue in his master's service points also in the same direction : his master shall bring him to the elohim and place him at the door or door-posts (Ex. 21:6) ; by the elohim we ought probably here also to understand the household gods.

We have the less reason for declining this explanation of the passover, laid to our hand by the narrative itself, since similar usages are met with also in ancient Arabia. Marti (op. cit. ) justly points to the custom there of sprinkling the tents of an army setting out on its march with blood, as also to the practice of the Bedouins, in time of pestilence, of besprinkling their camels on the neck and side with sacrificial blood in order to protect their herds.

Another possible interpretation 1 of the passover would be that put forward by Ewald (Alt.W 460-461) and others, that it was a sacrifice of propitiation and purification (which preceded [so Ew. ] this offering of the first-fruits). In support of this view reference is naturally made to the fact that 'hyssop' is employed elsewhere in connection with purification ceremonies (Lev. 1:4, 6:4, 6:9-10, Nu. 19:6, cp Ps. 51:9 [51:7]). Here too analogous rites among the Bedouins can be pointed to (sprinkling with blood a rite of lustration, Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus, 118 ; Goldziher, Le culte des saints chez les Musuimans, 31). It does not seem necessary, however, to travel beyond the account given in Ex. 12:21-22 itself for an explanation.

1 A complete list of explanations of the passover (pesah) can not be attempted here. A few may be singled out. Chr. Baur (Tub. Ztschr. f. Theol. 1832, p. 40 f.) regarded it as a propitiatory sacrifice, connected with the spring festival, which was offered to God as a substitution for the human male first-born. Vatke (Rel. d. A T 492 f.) and others bring the passover into line with the spring festival held among many peoples at the time of the equinox: pesah ( = passing over, transit) according to this view means the triumphant passage of the sun through the equinoctial point into the sign of Aries. [According to Toy (JBL 16:178-179 [1897]), npS, from ~C2, to 'leap, limp', denotes properly a peculiar ritual dance, and hence became the designation of the old nomadic Hebrew spring festival. The lamb offered would thus be the lamb or sacrifice of the pesah, 'and finally the term nDS would come to designate the feast or the lamb'. Cp DANCE, 4, 5.] On dogmatic grounds, so as better to controvert the Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacrificial character of the eucharist, the sacrificial character of the passover has often been denied altogether (Lundius, Judische Heiligtumer, 5:12, 5:80; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis fa, 1:270, and others); but this certainly cannot be maintained, as can be seen even from the expression used in Ex. 12:27 ( 'the sacrifice of Yahwe's passover' ).

One other point in the ritual demands particular notice : viz. , the fact that the pesah has to be slain in the evening - a regulation which does not occur in the case of any other sacrifice. True, this regulation is first met with in D (Dt. 16;6); but the custom as such was certainly ancient, and the narrative of Ex. 12:21-22 also makes it clear that evening was the proper time for the paschal sacrifice (cp v. 22b), and Ex. 12:42a may be cited in addition, to the same effect. Here what is being said is that the night is to be for Israel a D laE rj?. In 12:42b the rendering 'night of vigil of Yahwe', etc., is questionable, indeed, as also is the other point whether this half of the verse conies from the ancient source. The importance attached to the observance of this time-determination in Dt. 16:6 shows that the matter is not merely secondary but is essentially connected with the observance of the festival, and thus with its fundamental significance. The custom accordingly can have its origin only in this, that the festival was somehow connected with the phases of the moon, doubtless in the sense that the practices were carried out at new moon or at full moon, and were then held to have special efficacy.

Among the ancient nomad Hebrews it had been the practice on special occasions, for protection against pestilence and the like, to sprinkle the door posts (tent-poles) with the blood of a sheep. The custom afterwards became fixed ; every year in spring such a sacrifice came to be offered by each separate family. In this transformation the meaning of the custom of course came to be obscured, and it is always possible that the idea of a lustration gave new contents to it. In any case the passover was, and continued to be in the first instance for some time after the immigra tion into Canaan, a family festival - having absolutely nothing of the character of a popular festival, a hag. In Palestine the immigrating Israelites found among the agricultural Canaanites the custom of consecrating to the ba'al of the district, every spring at the beginning of harvest, the first-fruits of the corn, and of celebrating a festival in this connection. The idea lying at the foundation of the observance - that the first-fruits belong to Yahwe - was soon carried over by them to the first lings of the herd also. In offering these first-born the practice does not seem to have been in the first instance uniform ; whilst the Book of the Covenant enjoins that the offering be made always on the eighth day after birth (see above, 8), J orders that offerings of this description are to be made yearly at the spring festival, the feast of massoth. At the same time also, or perhaps even at an earlier date, this spring festival is changed from being a mere harvest celebration to being a feast commemorative of the F.xodus. This last change happened also, contemporaneously or perhaps even earlier, in the case of the passover feast. As early as the time of J at any rate we find it already interpreted in this commemorative sense and the characteristic customs explained by this reference (Ex. 12:21-22).

Thus in the time of J there were two adjacent festivals :

(1) a popular hag, the feast of massoth, at which also the firstlings of cattle were offered, and

(2) a sacrifice celebrated within the family circle, the pesah, at which the sacriticial victim was slain with a specially solemn ritual.

Both festivals fell approximately at the same time, the beginning of spring ; both were commemorative of the Exodus ; and thus it becomes easy to understand how the two should ultimately have been brought into immediate connection and the pesah slain at the beginning of the massoth feast. Then followed quite easily and naturally the fourth step - that of bringing the offering of the first-born into connection with the pesah, which then came to be taken quite generally as a firstling-sacrifice, but, of course, with retention of the ancient ritual. If at this stage it was still desired to retain the commemorative association with the Exodus, it became expedient to substitute for the old reference to the sparing of the people the new explanation that all the first-born belonged to Yahwe because at the Exodus he had slain the first-born of the Egyptians, but spared the Israelites.

We find this last step, with all the features we have mentioned, in D as we now have it in Dt. 16:1-2. (The question whether this whole passage is of one and the same origin need not be gone into here, for if we assume that it is not, the union of the two festivals will in any case have to be placed soon after the date of original D. ) The stage immediately preceding this is represented by J, and the Book of the Covenant in dicates the still earlier steps in the development.

In our attempt to picture to ourselves the course of the development we must not, however, forget that we are unable to pronounce with certainty and in detail as to the transition from one to another of the various conceptions of the two festivals.

It is, for example, quite possible to imagine another course of the development from the stage which we find in E, where the passover as well as the sacrifice of the first-born both still appear as distinct from the massoth feast ; the next step may have been that the passover was first brought into connection with the offering of the firstlings of the herd, and only subsequently, after receiving this interpretation, became amalgamated with the massoth feast. What specially stands in the way of any more accurate knowledge of the intermediate stages of this development is our ignorance as to the exact form of the legislation of J. The rest of the older literature is silent altogether as to the passover ; and we are expressly informed that the passover as enjoined in D was felt to be something wholly new at the time of the finding of the law : surely there was not kept such a passover from the days of the judges (2 K. 23:21-22).

After the amalgamation of the two feasts, the ritual of the spring festival is laid down in D as follows : The festival begins with the pesah ; sheep and cattle ( |Ns) are to be sacrificed at the sanctuary at even. No leaven is to be eaten, nor may any of the flesh sacrificed at the sanctuary remain over until morning ; it is to be eaten there, boiled, that same night. The day after, the participant is free to go home. At home the festival is continued ; for seven days no leaven is to be seen, on the seventh day there is to be another festal gathering, and, as being a special festival, this day is to be observed by Sabbatic rest (Dt. 16:1-8). The extension of the festival over seven days we may safely take to be an innovation on J and E.

The development of D's fundamental idea that of the centralisation of the worship - is seen more plainly here than in the case of the other great feasts. The passover completely loses its specific and characteristic rite - that of the sprinkling of the lintel and door-posts with blood. With a celebration no longer at the separ ate home but at the common sanctuary, this rite ceases to be practicable. Precisely here, however, we must not regard it as impossible that this particular piece of ritual may already have fallen into abeyance before the time of D. If the conception of the passover as an offering of the first-born may be presumed to have arisen before the time of D, the rite in question must already have lost its peculiar importance. Another inevitable consequence of the centralisation of the wor ship is the fixing of the date of the feast ; as early as Ezekiel we find the fourteenth day of the first month already presupposed as fixed (Ezek. 45:21). In other respects the feast participated in the general changes which resulted from the centralisation of the worship (FEASTS, 9-10) , but the change entitled to special prominence is that it has to be observed at the sanctuary.

The development subsequent to D is clear. Ezekiel does not deal with the ritual in detail, determining only what the sacrifices are to be. On the 14th day of the month (first of the festival), the prince is to slaughter, for himself and all the people, a bullock for a sin-offering, and then on each of the seven days of the feast a he-goat for a sin-offering, seven bullocks and seven rams for a burnt-offering, each with the appropriate meal-offering, an ephah of meal and a hin of oil for every bullock and every ram.

Singularly enough, H has nothing to say about the passover (Lev. 23:9-14). It speaks only of massoth, as an agricultural festival at which the first-fruit sheaf is to be brought to the priest, who 'shall wave the sheaf before Yahwe to make you acceptable'. This is to be done 'on the morrow after the sabbath', and on the day of the waving a yearling lamb is to be offered as a burnt-offering, along with a meal-offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil and the fourth part of a hin of oil as a drink-offering. The specifications of this law go back accordingly to a period earlier in time than the amalgamation of pesah and massoth, which we now find in the existing text of D. Verses 4-8 are a later addition to H from P.

In P, finally, the amalgamation of the two feasts is complete, quite as in D ; but in one noteworthy point the law of P marks a retrogression from D. The passover is again made a domestic festival. The regulations laid down in connection with the narrative of the Exodus are given in Ex. 12:1-20, 12:43-50 (cp Lev. 23:4-8, Nu. 9:10-14).

On the tenth day of the first month every Israelite family is to provide for itself a yearling lamb or kid without blemish. If the household is too small for a lamb, neighbours are to be called in to make up the deficiency. The festival, properly so-called, is to begin on 14th of Nisan, when the lamb is to be slaughtered at even. The lintels and door-posts of the houses are to be sprinkled with the blood ; the flesh must be eaten the same night - roasted, not raw or sodden with water. No bone of it is to be broken, and the head must not be severed ; nothing of the flesh may be carried from the house. It is to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs; all participants are to present themselves at the meal equipped as for a journey. Of the flesh nothing must remain over till the morning ; anything that happens to remain uneaten must be burnt.

The meaning of some of these details is no longer clear. We do not know, for example, why the lamb had to be chosen exactly on the tenth day of the month. Dillmann (ad loc. ) suggests that the tenth day, generally, had a certain sacred character in ancient times - traces of which sanctity still survive in Islam. That the lamb has now to be roasted, not boiled as in D, is merely a particular instance of the general principle by which sacrificial flesh ceased to be boiled (Benzinger, Archaol. 451 ; see further, SACRIFICE). The injunction that no bone is to be broken, nor the head severed, may perhaps be intended to symbolise the oneness of all participants in the meal. The command to burn whatsoever remains over doubtless has in view the keeping of what is sacro sanct from profanation (cp the precept with reference to the flesh of the sin offering, Lev. 8:17). The bitter herbs at first meant only that such herbs were the usual condiments accompanying a meal ; the custom, without any particular meaning in itself, ultimately rose to the dignity of a law. LXX renders irtKpiSft [pikrides], wild lettuce (cp Plin. HN 8:41) or endive (Dioscor. 2160, Theophr. H. Pl. 7:11). Both herbs are found in Egypt and Syria. Cp further BITTER HERBS.

Participation in the passover was strictly enjoined on every male Israelite (according to later usage, from the fourteenth year onwards). All participants had of course to be ceremonially pure. So much weight is laid on this participation by every individual, that special regu lations are given for cases in which participation was impossible.

The individual who is unclean or on a journey is bidden to observe the rite on the fourteenth day of the second month ; but unless these sufficient reasons can be alleged the penalty of omitting the observance is that of 'cutting off' ( see CUTTING OFF). No foreigner is allowed to eat the passover ; but the circumcised slave may, and indeed, all non-Israelites who have accepted circumcision.

The main difference from the old ritual lies in the fact that the characteristic rite with the blood which formerly was the central one is no longer so. Looking at the letter of the law one can even doubt whether this particular rite was ever intended to be observed for all time. In the first instance, it is enjoined only for the first celebration of the passover, whilst in the detailed regulations as to the manner of eating, it is continually repeated that they are to be constantly observed. On the other hand, the eating now so much emphasised, for which quite precise instructions are given, is not so much as mentioned in the old legislation. It need hardly be added that the passover is now divested of its sacrificial character ; it is henceforward to be slain no longer at the temple but at home.

The massoth feast likewise is conjoined with the passover in a manner differing somewhat from that of D. It begins on the day after the passover (not with the passover itself), so that henceforward passover and massoth together extend over eight days, whilst in Exodus and D they last only for seven (Nu. 28:17, Ex. 12:18). The main thing in the massoth feast is the eating of unleavened bread.

No leaven may be seen in Israelite houses during all these days, and whoso even eats leaven during this period is to be 'cut off'. On the first and on the seventh day of the feast a solemn assembly is to be held at the sanctuary and a sabbath rest observed. For each of the seven days sacrifices are enjoined on a large scale (Nu. 28:17+), daily two bullocks, one ram, seven yearling lambs without blemish as a burnt offering, besides one he-goat as a sin offering ; the accompanying meal-offerings are three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour with oil for the bullocks, two-tenth parts for the ram, one-tenth for the lamb - all this of course over and above the daily burnt-offering and drink-offering.

In one part of the ritual we still find a trace of the original meaning of the feast in that part, namely, where the sheaf of first-fruits is offered on the day after the sabbath (Lev. 23:9). Which day is here meant is much disputed.

The prevailing view of Jewish tradition is that the 'sabbath' means the first day of the festival itself, in other words the day after the slaying of the passover lamb - i.e., the 15th of Nisan. It is held to be called a sabbath as being a principal feast-day. Such a designation for the days of the feast, it must however be observed, is nowhere else met with. The Sadducees and Karaites, on the other hand (Menach. 65a, Ta'anith. 1, 2) understand by the expression the first ordinary sabbath day falling within the period of the festival, with this difference, that the Karaites when the first day of massoth is a 'day after the sabbath' - i.e. , a Sunday - cause the offering of the sheaf to be brought, whilst the Sadducees in this case hold the seventh massoth day to be the sabbath of the law, and postpone the offering of the sheaf till the day after : both alike are inconsistent with the letter and the meaning of the law.

To interpret the law, we must not take it in connection with the other regulations of P which fix a definite date, for the law itself determines the occurrence of the feast only in accordance with the beginning of harvest. If we are not to resort to violence, we can therefore only understand the sabbath as meaning the first sabbath in harvest. As the harvest, of course, never began on a sabbath, the offering of the sheaf could never fall out side the period of the massoth feast. This last is a possible eventuality in the interpretation of Nowack and others, according to which the first day of the harvest week, that is, of the week on which the harvest begins, is intended. See further, Dillmann on Lev. 23:11, and Nowack, HA 2:176-177

In the later observance of the feast it is a remarkable fact that not P but D was followed - at least in the main point, that of the slaying of the lamb at the temple. As early as in 2 Ch. 35:1-2 at Josiah's passover we find the slaughtering represented as being done in the court of the temple and by the hands of the Levites. The blood of the paschal lambs is as in the case of every other sacrifice sprinkled by the priests on the altar and the fat burnt ; besides the paschal lambs other animals also are sacrificed as burnt offerings. It will hardly be assuming too much to suppose that the Chronicler here had in view the passover celebration as it was in his own time. The sacrificing of the passover by Levites and priests is confirmed also by Ezra 6:19 for the time which it covers, and by the practice of later Judaism (cp Pes. 5:1+, 6:3, 4).

The celebration at the time of Christ was in this wise. The passover could be slain only at Jerusalem ; this brought an immense concourse together. Josephus (BJ 6:9:3) tells us that on one occasion (some years before the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans) the number of paschal lambs rose to 256, 500 ; as at least ten men must be reckoned to each lamb this would give us more than two millions and a half of men, not counting those who were ceremonially disqualified. Plainly this is a great exaggeration. Still it is certain that the concourse was so great as to make it impossible for it to find room within the city itself. Till midday on 14th Nisan the houses were being rid of all leaven (Pes. 1:3-4, 3:6). In the afternoon the paschal lambs were slaughtered in various quarters of the town, their blood poured out by the priests at the altar, and the sacrificial portions offered. Then the lambs were again taken back by the several families to their homes. Not fewer than ten men and not more than twenty ate one lamb together. The bitter herbs and unleavened cakes were dipped into a kind of sweet sauce called haroseth* The meal began with a cup of red wine, blessed by the head of the house. The eldest son then asked the father what was meant by this feast and the answer was given by the father or, it might be, by the person who read the narrative of the institution. The Hallel (Pss. 113-114) was then sung, the second cup was drunk, and thereupon the meal strictly so-called was eaten. This over, with a praver of thanksgiving the third cup was brought forward, and blessed as before by the head of the house. While Pss. 115-118 were being sung, a fourth cup was drunk. The Samaritans have preserved a survival of the ancient blood-rite in so far as they mark the foreheads of their children with the blood (cp the description of the Samaritan celebration in Baed. Pal.C-t 226+}.

the name given to three epistles which bear the name of Paul, and of which two are addressed to Timothy and one to Titus. They are marked off from the other Pauline epistles by certain common characteristics of language and subject-matter, and are called 'pastoral' because they consist almost exclusively of admonitions for the pastoral administration of Christian communities. None of the Pauline epistles have given greater ground for discussion. As they now stand, they are commonly denied by modern critics to Paul, though efforts are being made to find some partial justification of the church tradition (cp EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, 7, n. 2 ; col. 1327). See TIMOTHY (EPISTLES), TITUS (EPISTLE).

(n&TARA, 1 Acts 21:1). Patara is described as a 'great city with a harbour, and temples of Apollo' (Strabo, 666). It lay 5 or 6 mi. SE. of the mouth of the river Xanthus, and was, in fact, the port of the city of Xanthus which lay 10 stades up the river (Appian, BC 4:8:1, BpoOros es Ildrapa d?r6 EdvOov /carpet, TTO\LV eoiKvlav einvfii^ Za.vdluv). It gained its importance from its situation on the SW. coast of Lycia, due E. of Rhodes, and consequently on the track of ships trading between the Aegean and the Levant. Therefore Paul, after passing Rhodes, came to Patara, voyaging from Macedonia to Palestine, and there found a ship sailing over unto Phoenicia. 2 The course thence was S. of Cyprus directly to Tyre (v. 3). It would seem that, for ships sailing to Syria, Patara was the point of departure for the direct run through the open sea (correct force of di<nrepu>i> [diaperon] in v. 2) ; whilst, for those going in the opposite direction, Myra, which lay about 35 mi. to the E. , was the point at which the Karamanian coast was struck (cp Acts 27:5). A good parallel to the entire voyage of Paul on this occasion is found in Livy 37:16, 3 for this must at all times have been the highway of maritime traffic. The connection of Patara with Phoenicia is illustrated by the fact that, during the war of Rome with Antiochus (190 B.C.), C. Livius was stationed there in order to intercept the Syrian fleet (Livy, 37:15).

Owing to its commercial importance, Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt improved the city, and renamed it the Lycian Arsinoe ( Ap^ii/di) y ei- Au/a <i, Strabo, 666); but this title soon fell into disuse. The temple and oracle of Apollo at Patara were celebrated (cp the later coin-types, and Herod. 1:182, Verg. Aen. 4:143, Hor. Od. iii. 4:64, Paus. 9:41:1). A large triumphal arch with three openings, still standing, bears the inscription Patara, the metropolis of the Lycian nation ; and there are many other remains, including those of baths built by Vespasian.

2 The reason for Paul's transshipment at Patara lay in the fact that 'he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost' (Acts 20:16). The ship in which he had come to Patara was either going no farther, or was intending to call at the Pamphylian and Cilician ports.

It is usually held that Pathros ( = Eg. p3-t3-rsi [3 as in the IPU symbol], 'the south land', Copt, pto res or pteres ; Ass. paturisi) means Upper Egypt (see EGYPT, 43 ; GEOGRAPHY, 15 [6]; Erman, ZATW 10:118 [1890] ; Del. Par. 310; Schr. KGF-z%3f.). Plausible as the theory is, it must be re-examined in the light of the belief 1 that prophecies as well as narratives have sometimes been so edited as to obtain a new and very different geographical and historical reference. That 'Pathros' means 'upper Egypt' in the passages as they now stand, cannot be denied ; but it has yet to be ascertained whether the original writer really had 'upper Egypt' in his mind,

(a) In the first passage (Is. 11:11) there is clearly no certainty that this is the case. Now that it has been maintained that there was probably an Edomite captivity of the Jews (see OBAUIAH [BOOK], 7), and that 'Asshur' is not unfrequently miswritten for 'Geshur', and 'Babel' and 'Elam' for 'Jerahmeel', and also that in Gen. 10:14 PATHRUSIM [q.v.] is most probably a distortion of Sarephathim, it becomes, to say the least, possible that the original reading of Is. 11:11 was, 'from Geshur and from Misrim, and from Zarephath, and from Cush, and from Jerahmeel, and from the Zarhites, and from the Arabians' (cp s /3a/3uXwvtas [Babylonias] = l 73a = ?NCnT, and see Crit. Bib.}.

(b) In Jer. 44:1 we read of 'all the Jews who dwelt in the land of D isD. who dwelt at Migdol, and at Tahpanhes, and at Noph, and in the country of Pathros', and in v. 15 of 'all the people that dwelt in the land of D ISD, in Pathros'. Beke, however, has already expressed the view (Orig. Bib. 1307) that the places referred to are in a N. Arabian DHSD. This appears to be correct ; only it must be added that the names, except Migdol, have been corrupted. Migdol (a common Hebrew term) is not improbably the Migdal-cusham which under lies the Migdal-shechem of Judg. 9:46 (see SHECHEM, TOWER OF) ; Tahpanhes and Noph have arisen out of NAPHTUHIM [q.v.]; Pathros = Zarephath.

(c) Ezek. 29:14 occurs in a prophecy which (like that in Jer. 46) has not improbably been altered and expanded from a prophecy on Misrim (Musur in N. Arabia) ; cp PARADISE, i. The original reading must have been very different from what now stands in MT, and very possibly was, 'and I will cause them to return to the land of Zarephath, to the land of Jerahmeel'.

(d) In Ezek. 30:14 the traditional text reads 'Pathros, Zoan, No'. But the original reading of the second name was probably 'Zoar' - i.e., 'Missur' (see ZOAR), whilst 'No-[amon]' seems to have come from 'Ammon' (a not uncommon corruption of Jerahmeel), and 'Pathros' from 'Zarephath'. Cp PI-BESETH, TAHPANHES. The student will remember that when the ancient editors have been proved to have used much uncritical conjecture, it is the duty of modern critics to employ the ordinary means of critical restoration of the original text. T. K. C.

(D D-inE), a 'son' of Mizraim, Gen. 10:14 (TTiVrpOCCONieiAA [A and A a? in i Ch.], coNoeiM [E], -iei/v\ [L]), 1 Ch. 1:12+ ((hAee [L, om. B]). If, however, we are to point D li O, Misrim, ns will be a corruption of D nBns. Sarephathim (the list containing only S. Palestine peoples). See MIZRAIM, 26

Marquart (Fun:/. 26) would read C DinB in Jer. 46:9b for the superfluous t ED- If so, it would be best to go a step farther and read C nsiSj and suppose that a prophecy against Misrim has been altered and expanded into a prophecy against Mizraim. Cp PROPHET, 45. T. K. C.

Patmos, now called Patino, is a barren rocky island, about 10 mi. long and 5 mi. wide (Pliny, HN 4:23, Patmos, circuitu triginta millia passuum), in that section of the Aegean which was called the Icarian Sea, between Samos and Cos (Strabo, 488). It would, therefore, be a feature in the scene viewed by Paul in his voyage from Samos, 20 mi. to the N., to Cos (Acts 20:15, 21:1 ; cp E. D. Clark, Travels, 2:194). It is first mentioned by Thucydides (3:33 = 428 B.C.) - its sole appearance in ancient history, though the ruins of the Hellenic town on the height between the inlets of La Scala (E. ) and Merika (W. ) would point to a certain degree of prosperity, of which we have otherwise no hint. The island must, in fact, have been of some importance, as its harbour is one of the safest in all the Greek islands.

In the Middle Ages also it flourished, and from its palms was known as Pahnosa: the degradation of the vegetation is somewhat foolishly attributed to Turkish rule. The northern and southern portions of the island are united by two isthmuses, only a few hundred yards wide, between which rises the ruin-crowned height above mentioned. On the E. of the southernmost isthmus lies the port : the town is farther S., round the Monastery of St. John.

Patmos owes its celebrity in NT history entirely to the mention of it in Rev. 1:9. Under the Empire, islands were largely used as places of banishment - e.g., Domitian banished Flavia Domitilla, suspected of being a Christian, to Pontia (Eus. HE 3:18:5 ; Dio Cass. 67:14 ) It has been suggested by some writers that the influence of the natural features of the view from the highest summit of the island may be traced in the imagery of the Apocalypse : references to the sea are unusually frequent (Rev. 4:6, 6:14, 13:1, 15:2, 16:20). [But see APOCALYPSE ; also JOHN (SON OF ZEBEDEE), 9.]

The entire southern section of the island belongs to the Monastery of St. John the Divine (founded by St. Christodulos in 1088, on the site of an ancient temple), on the summit of the highest hill (St. Elias, about 800 ft. ). Lower down is a second monastery, that of the Apocalypse, in which is shown the cave (ri> (TTTTjXcuoj rrfi AraraXttyvtM) wherein the Revelation was delivered. The cave is now a chapel : in one part of the roof a rent is pointed out, where the rock was broken at the commencement of the Revelation, and from a somewhat deeper cleft in this the Divine voice is said to have proceeded (Tozer, The Islands of the Aegean, 178-179).

For description of Hellenic ruins, see Memoirs Relating to Turkey, ed. Walpole, 2:29, 2:43-44:; H. F. Tozer, The Islands of the Aegean, 1890, p. 178-179. Most complete account by V. Guerin, in his Description de l'Ile de Patmos et de Samos, 1856; with map of the island. For the legends of St. John at Patmos, see the MS of the monastery, entitled Ai TrepioSot TOU QeoAdyou, composed by Prochorus his disciple (analysed by Guerin, op. cit. 20 f. ; it contains the composition of the Gospel only, not the Apocalypse).

(rrATpoB&C. abbrev. from Patrobius) is one of five who with the brethren that are with them are saluted in Rom. 16:14. They seem to have been heads of Christian households, or perhaps class leaders of some sort.

The lists of Pseudo-Dorotheas and Pseudo-Hippolytus represent Patrobas as bishop of Puteoli. Cp ROMANS.

The name was borne by a contemporary of Nero, a freedman ; cp Tac. Hist. 1:49, 2:95.

(WD; (J>orcop[ADEL]), Gen. 36:39. or PAI 1 ("rS; (hopcop [HA], C}>AOYA [ L l). 1 Ch. 1:50, the name of the city of Hadad, a king of Edom. Probably we should follow LXX and read -iij?p, Pe or (so Ball). See BELA, 2, HADAD (2), PEOR.

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, though not one of the original twelve, but only at a later date added by the Lord himself to the circle of his more intimate followers, soon became one of the most zealous, if not the most zealous, of them all. A Jew by birth, brought up in accordance with the strictest precepts of the law, bitterly opposed to the Christianity then beginning to emerge into prominence, as a youth he was one of the witnesses of the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58-8:3). Anon, while 'breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord' (Acts 9:1), his career is arrested and he is converted on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:2-8). Once a preacher of the gospel, he henceforth, without hesitation or delay, devotes to its service for all the rest of his life all his rare gifts of intellect and heart, his unmatched courage, his immovable fidelity. Finally, after long and indefatigable wander ings, including three great (missionary) journeys, probably about the year 64 A. D. , while still in the full vigour of manhood, he suffered martyrdom at Rome. Further details will be found in the Acts of the Apostles, and in his 13 (14) canonical epistles. Apart from one or two comparatively unimportant traditions, these are our sole and abundantly sufficient sources of information.

So thought and spoke almost all scholars of all schools, whether Protestant or Catholic, down to the beginning of the nineteenth century. All that was left for scholarship was to determine as exactly as possible the precise order of the events in detail and the proper light in which to view them, so as to gain a picture as faithful and complete as possible of the great apostle s life and activities. That Acts and the Epistles might be regarded, on the whole, as credible throughout, was questioned by no one.

Towards the middle of the nineteenth century the situation was completely altered. Criticism had learned to concern itself seriously with the contents of Acts and to inquire as to the genuineness of certain of the 13 (14} Pauline epistles as read in the NT.

The epistle to the Hebrews had already been excluded from the group by Carlstadt (1520), and among those who followed him in this were Luther, Calvin, Grotius (ob. 1681), and Semler (ob. 1791). E. Evanson in 1792 raised some doubts as to the Pauline origin of Romans, Ephesians, Colossians ; J. E. C. Schmidt in 1798 as to that of 1 and 2 Thessalonians ; Eichhorn (1804), Schleiermacher (1807), de Wette (1826) as to Timothy and Titus ; Usteri in 1824, as alsode Wette and Schleiermacher, following Evanson, as to Ephesians. By 1835 F. C. von Baur had given the coup de grace to the 'so-called Pastoral Epistles', Kern to 2 Thessalonians in 1839 ; Semler in 1776, followed by others, denied the unity of 2 Corinthians.

Baur, incidentally in his Pastoralbriefe (p. 79), declared that we possess only four letters of Paul with regard to the genuineness of which there can be no reasonable doubt - Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. This thesis became the corner-stone of the new building.

F. C. von Baur, the founder of what was called, from the university in which he taught, the Tubingen school, laid the foundation in his Paulus (1845 ; < 2 , after the author's death in 1860, by E. Zeller, 1866-1867; ET by Menzies, 2vols., 1873-1875). In Baur's view, Acts, and also such epistles as were not from the pen of Paul (Peter, or James) himself, ought to be regarded as 'tendency'-writings, designed to make peace or to establish it, as between Peter and Paul, the assumed heads of two parties or schools in early Christianity which were called by their names - Petrinists and Paulinists, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians ; parties which he held to have lived, like Peter and Paul themselves, and for a considerable time after the decease of these great leaders, in bitter hostility towards one another until, so far as they did not lose themselves in various heresies to right or to left, they became merged in one another in the bosom of the Catholic church. For the historian the all-important task now became that of discerning clearly the unquestionably genuine element in the Pauline Epistles, on which alone weight could be laid. With them could be combined only those elements in Acts which were seen not to be in contradiction with the epistles.

1 In the second edition of his Entstehung, however, Ritschl abandoned the Tubingen position.

safely say, in short, by the entire old guard of liberal theology - so, too, in France; in Holland also, until quite recently, by the whole modern school ; and in England among others by W. R. Cassells, the long anonymous author of Supernatural Religion (vols. i and 2, 1874 ; vol. 3, 1877), and by S. Davidson (Introduction to the Study of the NT, 2 vols. ; < :l) , 1894).

This also was, on the whole, the point of view occupied by E. Hatch when he contributed to Ency. Brit.^, 18 (1885), the article 'Paul', from which the following (4-32) of the present article are taken, a few short notes only being added within square brackets.

Saul, who is also (called) Paul [ZaDXos 6 /cal IlaOXos, Acts 13:9] was a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' - i.e., of pure Jewish descent unmixed with Gentile blood - of the tribe of Benjamin ( Rom 11:1, 2 Cor 11:22, Phil. 3:5 ). In Acts it is stated that he was born at Tarsus in Cilicia (9:11, 21:39 22:3); but in the fourth century there still lingered a tradition that his birthplace was Giscala, the last of the fortress-towns of Galilee which held out against Rome (Jerome, De vir. illustr. 100:5 ; Ad Philem. 5:23)- 1

The fact that Paul was called by two names has been accounted for in various ways. Saul (the Aramaic form, used only as a vocative, and in the narratives of his conversion, Acts 9:4, 9:17, 22:7, 22:13, 26:14; elsewhere the Hellenised form, SaGXoj [saulos]) was a natural name for a Benjamite to give to his son, in memory of the first of Jewish kings ; Paul is more difficult of explanation. It is first found in the narrative of the conversion of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus (Acts 13:7), and it has sometimes been supposed either that Paul himself adopted the name in compliment to his first Gentile convert of distinction, or that the writer of Acts intended to imply that it was so adopted. Others have thought that it was assumed by Paul himself after the beginning of his ministry, and that it is derived from the Latin paulus in the sense either of 'least among the apostles', or 'little of stature'. These and many similar conjectures, however, may probably be set aside in favour of the supposition that there was a double name from the first, one Aramaic or Hebrew, and the other Latin or Greek, like Simon Peter, John Mark, Simeon Niger, Joseph Justus ; this supposition is confirmed by the fact [that in those days many people had in Greek and Latin two or more names, of which there are many examples in the Oxyr. Pap. i. ii. ; and] that Paul was not an uncommon name in Syria and the eastern parts of Asia Minor (instances will be found in the Index Nominum to Boeckh's Corp. Inscr. Graec. [Oxyrhynchus Papyri, i. 98:205, bis, ii. 9:308]). Whatever be its origin, Paul is the only name used by himself, or used of him by others when once he had entered into the Roman world outside Palestine. Acts speaks of his having been a Roman citizen [ Pw/xcuos ['romaios], like Attalus 6 Xpicmai ij [o christianos], condemned to be thrown before the wild animals at Lyons, Eus. HE v. 1 44 47 50] by birth (Acts 22:28 ; cp 16:37, 23:27), a statement which also has given rise to several conjectures, because there is no clue to the ground upon which his claim to citizenship was based. Some modern writers question the fact, considering the statement to be part of the general colouring which the writer of Acts is supposed to give to his narrative ; and some also question the fact, which is generally considered to support it, of the appeal to the emperor.

1 It was an Ebionite slander that he was not a Jew at all, but a Greek [who wished to marry a Jewish priest's daughter at Jerusalem, for that reason became a proselyte and had himself circumcised, but, when the girl refused to marry him, got angry and began to write against circumcision, the Sabbath, and the whole law] (Epiphan. Haer. 30:16).

That Paul received part of his education at Tarsus, which was a great seat of learning, is a possible inference from his use of some of the technical terms which were current in the Greek schools of rhetoric and philosophy ; but, since the cultivation of a correct grammatical and rhetorical style was one of the chief studies of those schools, Paul s imperfect command of Greek syntax seems to show that this education did not go very far [cp HELLENISM, 9]. That he received the main part of his education from Jewish sources is not only probable from the fact that his family were Pharisees, but certain from the whole tone and character of his writings [though his language and style betray the genuine Greek ; cp W. C. van Manen, Paulus, 2:186-190, 3:156-160; A. Deissmann, GGA, 1896, pp. 767-769; E. L. Hicks, Stud. bibl. 5 (1896), pp. 1-14]. According to Acts, his teacher was GAMALIEL, who, as the grandson of Hillel, took a natural place as the head of the moderate school of Jewish theologians ; nor, in spite of the objection that the fanaticism of the disciple was at variance with the moderation of the master, does the statement seem in itself improbable. A more important difficulty in the way of accepting the statement that Jerusalem was the place of Paul s education is the fact that in that case his education must have been going on at the time of the preaching and death of Jesus Christ. That he had not seen Jesus Christ during his ministry seems to be clear, for a comparison of 1 Cor. 9:1 with 15:8 appears to limit his sight of him to that which he had at his conversion, and the 'knowing Christ after the flesh' of 2 Cor. 5:16 is used not of personal acquaintance but of 'carnal' as opposed to 'spiritual' understanding ; nor does the difficulty seem to be altogether adequately explained away by the hypothesis which some writers have adopted, that Paul was temporarily absent from Jerusalem at the times when Jesus Christ was there. Like all Jewish boys, Paul learnt a trade, that of tent-making ; this was a natural employment for one of Cilician origin, since the hair of the Cilician goat was used to make a canvas (cilicia) which was specially adapted for the tents used by travellers on the great routes of commerce, or by soldiers on their campaigns (cp Philo, De anim. idon. sacrif. i. 2238 ed. Mang. ; and see CiLlCiA, 3, end). Whether he was married or not is a question which has been disputed from very early times ; the expressions in 1 Cor. 7:8, 9:5 were taken by Tertullian to imply that he was not, and by Clement of Alexandria and Origen to imply that he had once been, but had become a widower.

The beginning of Paul's active life was doubtless like its maturity ; it was charged with emotion. He himself gives a graphic sketch of its inner history. His conversion to Christianity was not the first great change that he had undergone. I was alive without the law once (Rom. 7:9). He had lived in his youth a pure and guileless life. He had felt that which is at once the charm and the force of such a life, the unconsciousness of wrong. But, while his fellow-disciples in the rabbinical schools had been content to dissect the text of the sacred code with a minute anatomy, the vision of a law of God which transcended both text and comment had loomed upon him like a new revelation. With the sense of law had come the sense of sin. It was like the first dawn of conscience. He awoke as from a dream. The commandment came. It was intended to be 'unto life', but he found it to be 'unto death' ; for it opened up to him infinite possibilities of sinning : 'I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shall not lust'. The possibilities of sinning became lures which drew him on to forbidden and hated ground : 'sin, finding occasion through the commandment, beguiled me and through it slew me' (Rom. 7:7-11). This was his inner life, and no man has ever analysed it with a more penetrating and graphic power.

In his outward life this sense of the law of God became to Paul an overpowering stimulus. The stronger the consciousness of his personal failure, the greater the im pulse of his zeal. The vindication of the honour of God by persecuting heretics, which was an obligation upon all pious Jews, was for him a supreme duty. He became not only a persecutor but a leader among persecutors (Gal. 1:14).

What Paul felt was a very frenzy of hate ; he 'breathed threatening and slaughter', like the snorting of a war-horse before a battle, against the renegade Jews who believed in a false Messiah (Acts 9:1, 26:11). His enthusiasm had been known before the popular outbreak which led to Stephen's death, for the witnesses to the martyr's stoning laid down their clothes at his feet (Acts 7:58), and he took a prominent place in the persecution which followed. He himself speaks of having 'made havoc' of the community at Jerusalem, spoiling it like a captured city (Gal. 1:13, 1:23); in the more detailed account of Acts he went from house to house to search out and drag forth to punishment the adherents of the new heresy (8:3). When his victims came before the Jewish courts he tried, probably by scourging, to force them to apostatise (26:11) ; in some cases he voted for their death (22:4, 26:10).

The persecution spread from Jerusalem to Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee (9:31); but Paul, with the same spirit of enterprise which afterwards showed itself in his missionary journeys, was not content with the limits of Palestine. He sought and obtained from the synagogue authorities at Jerusalem letters similar to those which, in the thirteenth century, the popes gave to the militia Jesu Christi contra haereticos. The ordinary jurisdiction of the synagogues was for the time set aside ; the special commissioner was empowered to take as prisoners to Jerusalem any whom he found to belong to The Way. Of the great cities which lay near Palestine, Damascus was the most promising, if not the only field for such a commission. At Antioch and at Alexandria, though the Jews, of whom there were very many, enjoyed a large amount of independence and had their own governor, the Roman authorities would probably have interfered to prevent the extreme measures which Paul demanded. At Damascus, where also the Jews were many and possibly had their own civil governor (2 Cor. 11:32), the Arabian prince Aretas (Haritha), who then held the city, might naturally be disposed to let an influential section of the population deal as they pleased with their refractory members.

On Paul's way to Damascus occurred an event which has proved to be of transcendent importance for the religious history of mankind. He became a Christian by what he believed to be the personal revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul's own accounts of the event are brief; but they are at the same time emphatic and uniform.

'It pleased God ... to reveal his Son in me' (Gal. 1:16); 'have I not seen Jesus our Lord' (1 Cor. 9:1) ; last of all 'he was seen of me also as of one born out of due time' (i Cor. 15:8, where o>$07) xofioi must be read in the sense of the parallel expressions u><f>07j KJJ<O, etc. ; in other words, Paul puts the appearance to himself on a level with the appearances to the apostles after the resurrection). These accounts give no details of the circumstances. Paul's estimate of the importance of such details was probably different from that which has been attached to them in later times.

The accounts in Acts are more elaborate ; they are three, one in the continuous narrative (9:3-19), a second in the address on the temple stairs (22:6-21), a third in the speech to Agrippa (26:12-18); they all differ in details, they all agree in substance ; the differences are fatal to the stricter theories of verbal inspiration, but they do not constitute a valid argument against the general truth of the narrative.

It is natural to find that the accounts of an event which lies so far outside the ordinary experience of men have been the object of much hostile criticism. The earliest denial of its reality is found in the Judaeo- Christian writings known as the Clementine Homilies, where Simon Magus is told that visions and dreams may come from demons as well as from God (Clem. Hom. 17:13-19). The most important of later denials are those of the Tubingen school, which explain the narratives in Acts either as a translation into the language of historical fact of the figurative expressions of the manifestation of Christ to the soul, and the consequent change from spiritual darkness to light (e.g. , Baur, Paul, ET 1:76 ; Zeller, Acts, ET 1:289), or as an ecstatic vision (Holsten, Zum Evangelium d. Paulus u. d. Petrus, 3-114). But against all the difficulties and apparent incredibilities of the narratives there stand out the clear and indisputable facts that the persecutor was suddenly transformed into a believer, and that to his dying day he never ceased to believe and to preach that he had seen Jesus.

Nor was it only that Paul had seen Jesus ; the gospel which he preached, as well as the call to preach it, was due to this revelation. 'It had pleased God to reveal his Son in him' that he 'might preach him among the Gentiles' (Gal. 1:12, 1:15-16). He had received the special mark of God's favour, which consisted in his apostleship, that all nations might obey and believe the gospel (Rom. 1:5, cp 12:3, 15:15-16). He had been entrusted with a secret (fj.v<TTr)piov [mysterion]) which had 'been kept in silence through times eternal', but which it was now his special office to make known (Rom. 11:25, 16:25-26; and even more prominently in the later epistles, Eph. 1:9, 3:2-9, 6:19, Col. 1:26-27, 4:3). This secret was that 'the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel'. This is the key to all Paul's subsequent history. He was the 'apostle of the Gentiles', and that 'not from men, neither through man' (Gal. 1:1); and so thoroughly was the conviction of his special mission wrought into the fibres of his nature, that it is difficult to give full credence to statements which appear to be at variance with it.

Of his life immediately after his conversion Paul himself gives a clear account : I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me ; but I went away into Arabia' (Gal. 1:16-17). The reason of his retirement, to what ever place it may have been 1 (see ARABIA, 4), is not far to seek. A great mental, no less than a great bodily, convulsion naturally calls for a period of rest ; and the consequences of his new position had to be drawn out and realised before he could properly enter upon the mission-work which lay before him. From 'Arabia' he returned to Damascus (Gal. 1:17), and there began not only his preaching of the gospel but also the long series of 'perils from his own countrymen', which constitute so large a part of the circumstances of his subsequent history (Acts 9:23-25, 2 Cor. 11:26, 11:32-33).

It was not until after three years, though it is uncertain whether the reckoning begins from his conversion or from his return to Damascus, that he went up to Jerusalem ; his purpose in going was to become acquainted with Peter, and he stayed with him fifteen days (Gal. 1:18). Of his life at Jerusalem on this occasion there appear to have been erroneous accounts current even in Paul s own lifetime, for he adds the emphatic attestation, as of a witness on his oath, that the account which he gives is true (Gal. 1:20). The point on which he seems to lay emphasis is that, in pursuance of his policy not to 'confer with flesh and blood', he saw none of the apostles except Peter and James, and that even some years afterwards he was still unknown by face to the churches of Judasa which were in Christ. 2

1 To Hauran (Renan), to the Sinaitic peninsula (Holsten). [Fries (ZNTW, 1901, 150-151) thinks that what Paul wrote was

Apa0a ['araba], and that the place intended was the yyy of the Talmud,

the v Apa/3a ['araba] of Josephus(Neuhauer, Geogr. 204 f. ; Jos. Vit. 51). Fries points out that the Great Rabbi Johanan b. Zakkai taught for several years at this Araba ; and that according to one tradition Paul himself was a Galilean, born at Gischala.J

2 A different account of this visit to Jerusalem is given in Acts 9:26-30, 26:20 ; the account of the trance in the temple, Acts 22:17-21, is in entire harmony with Paul's own words.

From Jerusalem Paul went 'into the regions of Syria and Cilicia', preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:21, 1:23). How much that brief expression covers is uncertain; it may refer only to the first few months after his departure from Jerusalem, or it may be a summary of many travels, of which that which is commonly known as his 'first missionary journey' is a type. The form of expression in Gal. 2:1 makes it probable that he purposely leaves an interval between the events which immediately succeeded his conversion and the conference at Jerusalem. For this interval, assuming it to exist, or in any case for the detail of its history, we have to depend on the accounts in Acts 11:20-30, 12:25-14:28. These accounts possibly cover only a small part of the whole period, and they are so limited to Paul's relations with Barnabas as to make it probable that they were derived from a lost 'Acts of Barnabas'. This supposition would probably account for the fact that in them the conversion of the Gentiles is to a great extent in the background.

The chief features of these accounts are

(i.) the formation of a new centre of Christian life at Antioch (12), and

(ii.) a journey which Paul, Barnabas, and for part of the way John Mark took through Cyprus and Asia Minor (14).

i. The first of these facts has a significance which has sometimes been overlooked for the history not only of Paul himself but also of Christianity in general. It is that the mingling together, in that splendid capital of the civilised East, of Jews and Syrians on the one hand, and Greeks and Romans on the other, furnished the conditions which made a Gentile Christianity possible. The religion of Jesus Christ emerged from its obscurity into the full glare of contemporary life. Its adherents attracted enough attention to receive in the common talk and intercourse of men a distinctive name. They were treated, not as a Jewish sect, but as a political party. To the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew 'Messiah', which was probably considered to be not a title but a proper name, was added the termination which had been employed for the followers of Sulla, of Pompey, and of Caesar [see CHRISTIAN, 4]. It is improbable that this would have been the case unless the Christian community at Antioch had had a large Gentile element ; and it is an even more certain and more important fact that in this first great mixed com munity the first and greatest of all the problems of early Christian communities had been solved, and Jews and Gentiles lived a common life (Gal. 2:12).

What place Paul himself had in the formation of this community can only be conjectured. In Acts he is less prominent than Barnabas; and although it must be gathered from the Epistle to the Galatians that he took a leading part in the controversies which arose, it is to be noted that he never elsewhere mentions Antioch in his epistles, and that he never visited it except casually in his travels. It may be supposed that from an early period he sought and found a wider field for his activity. The spirit of the Pharisees who 'compassed sea and land to make one proselyte' was still strong within him. The zeal for God which had made him a persecutor had changed its direction but not its force. His conversion was but an overpowering call to a new sphere of work. It is consequently difficult to believe that he was content to take his place as merely one of a band of teachers elected by the community or appointed by the Twelve. The sense of a special mission never passed away from him. 'Necessity was laid upon him' (1 Cor. 9:16). Inferior to the Twelve in regard to the fact that he had once 'persecuted the church of God', he was 'not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles' (2 Cor. 11:5) in regard to both the reality and the privileges of his commission, and to the truth of what he preached (1 Cor. 9:1-6, 2 Cor. 3:1-9, Gal. 1:12). It is also difficult to believe that he went out with Barnabas simply as the delegate of the Antiochean community ; whatever significance the laying on of hands may have had for him (Acts 13:3), it would be contrary to the tenor of all his writings to suppose that he regarded it as giving him his commission to preach the gospel.

ii. The narrative of the incidents of the single journey which is recorded in detail, and which possibly did not occupy more than one summer, has given rise to much controversy. Its general credibility is supported by the probability that in the first instance Paul would follow an ordinary commercial route, on which Jewish missionaries as well as Jewish merchants had been his pioneers. For his letters to his Gentile converts all presuppose their ac quaintance with the elements of Judaism. They do not prove monotheism ; they assume it.

According to the narrative Paul and his companions went first to Cyprus, the native country of Barnabas, and travelled through the island from its eastern port, Salamis, to its capital, Paphos. At Paphos a Jewish sorcerer, Bar-jesus, was struck with blindness, and the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, was converted. From Cyprus, still following a common route of trade, they went into the SE. districts of Asia Minor, through Pamphylia to Antioch in Pisidia. At Antioch, on two successive Sabbaths, Paul spoke in the synagogue ; the genuineness of the addresses which are recorded in Acts has been disputed, chiefly because the second of them seems to imply that he 'turned to the Gentiles' (Acts 13:46), not as a primary and unconditional obligation, but owing to the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews [cp ACTS, 4]. Expelled from Antioch, they went on to Iconium (where the apocryphal 'Acts of Paul and Thecla' place the scene of that improbable but not ungraceful romance), and thence to Lystra, where the healing of a cripple caused the simple and superstitious Lycaonians to take them for gods. Their farthest point was the neighbouring town of Derbe, whence they returned by the route by which they had come to the sea-coast, and thence to Antioch in Syria.

Although the general features of the narrative may be accepted as true, especially if, as suggested above (11), its basis is a memoir or itinerary not of Paul but of Barnabas), it must be conceded that this portion of Acts has large omissions. It is difficult to believe that the passionate zeal of an apostle who was urged by the stimulus of a special call of Jesus Christ was satisfied, for the long period of at least eleven years, with one short missionary journey, and that, with the exception of a brief visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11:30), he remained quietly at Tarsus or at Antioch (11:25, 13:1, 14:28). In this period must fall at least a portion of the experiences which are recorded in 2 Cor. 11:23-27, for which no place can be found in the interval between the conference at Jerusalem and the writing of that epistle. The scourging in the synagogues, the beating with the lictors rods in the Roman courts, the shipwrecks, the 'night and day in the deep', the 'perils of robbers' and 'perils in the wilderness', belong no doubt to some of the unrecorded journeys of these first years of Paul's apostolic life. A more important omission is that of some of the more distinctive features of his preaching. It is impossible to account for his attitude towards the original apostles in his interview with them at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1-10) except on the supposition that before that inter view, no less than after it, he was that which he had been specially called to be, the 'apostle of the Gentiles' and the preacher of the gospel of the uncircumcision.

At the end of fourteen years, either from his conversion or from his visit to Peter at Jerusalem [see CHRONOLOGY, 73], the question of the relation of the communities which the Twelve had formed, and of the gospel which he preached, to the original Christian communities, and to the gospel of the Twelve, came to a crisis. His position was unique. He owed neither his knowledge of the gospel nor his commission to preach it to any human authority (Gal. 1:1, 1:11-12). As Jesus Christ had taught and sent forth the Twelve, so had he taught and sent forth Paul. Paul was on equal terms with the Twelve. Until a revelation came to him he was apparently at no pains to co-operate with them. Between their respective disciples, on the other hand, there was evidently a sharp contention. The Jewish party, the original disciples and first converts, main tained the continued obligation of the Mosaic law and the limitation of the promises to those who observed it ; the Pauline party asserted the abrogation of the law and the free justification of all who l>elieved in Jesus Christ.

The controversy narrowed itself to the one point of circumcision. If the Gentiles were, without circumcision, members of the kingdom of God, why was the law obligatory on the Jews? If, on the other hand, the Gentiles had to be circumcised, the gospel had but a secondary importance. It seemed for a time as though Christianity would be broken up into two sharply-divided sects, and that between the Jewish Christianity, with its seat at Jerusalem, which insisted on circumcision, and the Gentile Christianity, with its seat at Antioch, which rejected circumcision, there would be an irreconcilable antagonism. It was consequently 'by revelation' (Gal. 2:2) that Paul and Barnabas, with the Gentile convert Titus as their 'minister' or secretary, went to confer with the leaders among the original disciples, the 'pillars' or 'them who were of repute', 'James, and Cephas, and John'.

Paul put the question to them : Was it possible that he was spending or had spent his labour in vain ? (jirjjnos . . . f&panov in Gal. 2:2 form a direct question depending on ave0tii.i)v [anethemen]). He laid before them the 'gospel of the uncircumcision'. They made no addition to it (Paul says of himself avtOifiifV [anethemen], and of 'them who were of repute' ov&ki irpotTai>e6fVTO [ouden prosanethento], Gal. 2:26), but accepted it as Paul preached it, recognising it as being a special work of God, and as being on the same level of authority with their own (Gal. 2:7-9). The opposition was no doubt strong ; there were false brethren who refused to emancipate the Gentile world from the bondage of the law ; and there was also apparently a party of compromise which, admitting Paul s general contention, maintained the necessity of circumcision in certain cases, of which the case of Titus, for reasons which are no longer apparent, was typical. But Paul would have no compromise. From his point of view compromise was impos sible. 'Justification' was either 'of faith' or 'by the works of the law' ; it was inconceivable that it could be partly by the one and partly by the other.

Paul succeeded in maintaining his position at all points. He received 'the right hand of fellowship', and went back to Antioch the recognised head and preacher of the gospel of the uncircumcision. Within his own sphere he had perfect freedom of action ; the only tie between his converts and the original community at Jerusalem was the tie of benevolence. Jew and Gentile were so far 'one body in Christ' that the wealthier Gentile communities should 'remember the poor. 1

1 Few passages of the NT have been more keenly debated during the second part of the nineteenth century [cp COUNCIL] than the accounts of this conference at Jerusalem in Acts 15:4-29 and Gal. 2:1-10. Almost all writers agree in thinking that the two accounts refer to the same event ; but no two writers precisely agree as to the extent to which they can be reconciled. The main points of difficulty in the two accounts are these :-

(1) Acts says that Paul went up by appointment of the brethren at Antioch ; Paul himself says that he went up 'by revelation'.

(2) In Acts Paul has a subordinate position ; in his own account he treats with 'the three' on equal terms.

(3) In Acts Peter and James are on Paul's side from the first ; in Galatians they are so only at the end of the conference, and after a discussion.

(4) Acts makes the conference result in a decree, in which certain observances are imposed upon the Gentiles ; Paul himself expressly declares that the only injunction was that they 'should remember the poor'.

When Paul returned to Antioch, Peter followed him, and for a time the two apostles lived in harmony. 'Peter did eat with the Gentiles'. He shared the common table at which the Jewish distinctions of meats were disregarded. He thereby accepted Paul's position. When, however, 'certain came from James' he drew back [<poj3ov/j.fi>os roi)s K irfpiTOfj.TJs, Gal. 2:12. Barnabas and the whole of the Jewish party at Antioch followed him]. Paul showed that the position of Peter was illogical, and that he was self-convicted (Kareyvwff- /j.fvo$ fy, Gal. 2:11).

Paul's argument was that the freedom from the law was complete, and that to attach merit to obedience to the law was to make disobedience to the law a sin, and, by causing those who sought to be justified by faith alone to be transgressors, to make Christ a 'minister of sin'. Obedience to any part of the law involved recognition of the 1 whole of it as obligatory (Gal. 5:3), and consequently made void the grace of God.

The schism in the community at Antioch was probably never healed. It is not probable that Paul's contention was there victorious ; for, whilst Paul never again speaks of that city, Peter seems to have remained there [?], and he was looked upon in later times as the founder of its church.

This failure at Antioch served Paul as the occasion for carrying out a bolder conception. The horizon of his mission widened before him. The 'fulness of the Gentiles' had to be brought in. His diocese was no longer Antioch ; it was the whole of the Roman empire. The years that followed were almost wholly spent among its great cities, 'preaching among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ' (Eph. 3:8). Paul became the spiritual father of many communities, and he watched over them with a father s constant care. He gathered round him a company of faithful disciples, sharers in his missionary work, whom he sent sometimes to break new ground, sometimes to arrange disputes, sometimes to gather contributions, sometimes to examine and report. Of his travels, whether with them or alone, no complete record has been preserved ; some of them are minutely described in Acts, others within the same period are known only or chiefly from his epistles. In giving an account of them it is necessary to change to some extent the historical perspective which is presented in Acts ; for, in working up fragments of itineraries of Paul s companions into a consecutive narrative, many things are made to come into the foreground which Paul himself would probably have disregarded, and many things are omitted or thrown into the shade to which, from his letters, he appears to have attached a primary importance. 1

1 The most important instance of this is probably the almost entire omission of an account of his relations with the community at Corinth ; one of his visits is entirely omitted, another is also omitted, though it may be inferred from the general expression 'he came into Greece' (20:2) ; and of the disputes in the community, and Paul's relations to them, there is not a single word.

The first scene of Paul s new activity, if indeed it be allowable to consider the conference at Jerusalem and the subsequent dispute at Antioch as having given occasion for a new departure, was probably eastern Asia Minor, more particularly Galatia. Some of it he had visited before ; and from the fact that the Galatians, though they had been heathens (Gal. 4:8), were evidently acquainted with the law, it may be inferred that Paul still went on the track of Jewish missionaries, and that here, as else where, Judaism had prepared the way for Christianity [though it was resolved that he should go to the Gentiles only, Gal. 1:16, 22:89]. Of his preaching Paul himself gives a brief summary ; it was the vivid setting forth before their eyes of Jesus as the crucified Messiah, and it was confirmed by evident signs of the working of the Spirit (Gal. 3:1, 3:5). The new converts received it with enthusiasm ; Paul felt for them as a father ; and an illness (some have thought, from the form of expression in Gal. 4:15, that it was an acute ophthalmia) which came upon him (on the assumption that this was his first visit) intensified their mutual affection. What we learn specially of the Galatians is probably true also of the other Gentiles who received him ; some of them were baptized (Gal. 3:27), they were formed into communities (Gal. 1:2), and they were so far organised as to have a distinction between teachers and taught (Gal. 6:6).

An imperative call summoned Paul to Europe. The western part of Asia Minor, in which afterwards were formed the important churches of Ephesus, Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, was for the present left alone. Paul passed on into Macedonia. The change was more than a passage from Asia to Europe. Hitherto, if Antioch be excepted, he had preached only in small provincial towns. Henceforward he preached chiefly, and at last exclusively, in the great centres of population. He be gan with Philippi, which was at once a great military post and the wealthy entrepot of the gold and silver mines of the neighbouring Mount Pangruus. The testi mony of the eyewitness whose account is incorporated in Acts 16:12-18 tells us that his first convert was a Jewish proselyte, named Lydia (see LYDIA) ; and Paul himself mentions other women converts (Phil. 4:2). About the community which soon grew up there is the special interest that it was organised after the manner of the guilds, of which there were many both at Philippi and in other towns of Macedonia, and that its administrative officers were entitled, probably from the analogy of those guilds, 'bishops' and 'deacons'. [Cp MINISTRY, 57.]

In Europe, as in Asia, persecution attended him. He was 'shamefully entreated' at Philippi (1 Thess. 2:2), and according to Acts the ill-treatment came not from the Jews but from the Gentile employers of a frenzied prophetess, who saw in Paul s preaching an element of danger to their craft. Consequently he left Philippi, and passing over Amphipolis, the political capital of the province, but the seat rather of the official classes than of trade, he went on to the great seaport and commercial city of Thessalonica. His converts there seem to have been chiefly among the Gentile workmen (1 Thess. 4:11, 2 Thess. 3:10-12), and he himself became one of them. Knowing as he did the scanty wages of their toil, he 'worked night and day that he might not burden any of them' (1 Thess. 2:9, 2 Thess. 3:8). For all his working, however, he does not seem to have earned enough to support his little company ; he was constrained both once and again to accept help from Philippi ( Phil. 4:16). He was determined that, whatever he might have to endure, no sordid thought should enter into his relations with the Thessalonians ; he would be to them only what a father is to his children, behaving himself 'holily and righteously and unblameably', and exhorting them to walk worthily of God who had called them ( 1 Thess. 2:10-12). There, as elsewhere, his preaching was in much conflict. The Jews were actively hostile. According to the account in Acts (17 5-9), they at last hounded on the lazzaroni of the city, who were doubtless moved as easily as a Moslem crowd in modern times by any cry of treason or infidelity, to attack the house of Jason (possibly one of Paul s kinsmen, Rom. 16:21), either because Paul himself was lodging there, or because it was the meeting-place of the community. Paul and Silas were not there, and so escaped ; but it was thought prudent that they should go at once and secretly to the neighbouring small town of Bercea. Thither, however, the fanatical Jews of Thessalonica pursued them ; and Paul, leaving his companions Silas and Timothy at Beroea, gave up his preaching in Macedonia for a time and went southwards to Athens.

The narrative which Acts gives of Paul's stay at Athens is one of the most striking, and at the same time one of the most difficult, episodes in the book. What is the meaning of the inscription on the altar? [see UNKNOWN GOD]. What is the Areopagus? How far does the reported speech give Paul's actual words? What did the Athenians understand by the Resurrection? These are examples of questions on which it is easy to argue, but which, with our present knowledge, it is impossible to decide. One point seems to be clear, both from the absence of any further mention of the city in Paul s writings, and from the absence of any permanent results of his visit : his visit was a comparative failure. It was almost inevitable that it should be so. Athens was the educational centre of Greece. It was a great university city. For its students and professors the Christianity which Paul preached had only an intellectual interest: They were not conscious of the need, which Christianity presupposes, of a great moral reformation ; nor indeed was it until many years afterwards, when Christianity had added to itself certain philosophical elements and become not only a religion hut also a theology, that the educated Greek mind, whether at Athens or elsewhere, took serious hold of it.

Of Paul's own inner life at Athens we learn, not from Acts, but from one of his epistles. His thoughts were not with the philosophers but with the communities of Macedonia and the converts among whom he had preached with such different success. He cared far less for the world of mocking critics and procrastinating idlers in the chief seat of culture than he did for the enthusiastic artisans of Thessalonica, to whom it was a. burning question of dispute how soon the Second Advent would be, and what would be the relation of the living members of the church to those who had fallen asleep. Paul would fain have gone back to them ; but 'Satan hindered him' (1 Thess. 2:17-18) ; and he sent Timothy in his stead to comfort them as concerning their faith, and to prevent their relapsing, as probably other converts did, under the pressure of persecution (1 Thess. 3:2-3).

From Athens Paul went to Corinth, the capital of the Roman province of Achaia, and the real centre of the busy life of Greece. It was not the ancient Greek city with Greek inhabitants, but a new city which had grown up in Roman times, with a vast population of mingled races, who had added to the traditional worship of Aphrodite the still more sensuous cults of the East. Never before had Paul had so vast or so promising a field for his preaching ; for alike the filthy sensuality of its wealthy classes and the intense wretchedness of its half-million of paupers and slaves (TT}V /3de\vpiai> rCiv eKelcrf irXovviuv /ecu rCiv irevriTUv d#XtoT7pra, Alciphr. 3:60) were prepared ground upon which his preaching could sow the seed, in the one case of moral reaction, and in the other of hope. At first the greatness of his task appalled him : 'I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling' (1 Cor. 2:3). He laid down for himself from the first, however, the fixed principle that he would preach nothing but 'Jesus Christ, and him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2), compromising with neither the Jews, to whom the word of the cross - i.e. , the doctrine of a crucified Messiah - was 'a stumbling-block', nor with the Gentile philosophers, to whom it was 'foolishness' ( 1 Cor. 1:18, 1:23). It is probable that there were other preachers of the gospel at Corinth, especially among the Jews, since soon afterwards there was a Judaising party ; Paul's own converts seem to have been chiefly among the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22). Some of them apparently belonged to the luxurious classes (1 Cor. 6:11), a few of them to the influential and literary classes (1 Cor. 1:26) ; but the majority were from the lowest classes, the 'foolish', the 'weak', the 'base', and the 'despised' (1 Cor. 1:27-28). Among the poor Paul lived a poor man's life. It was his special 'glorying' (1 Cor. 9:15, 2 Cor. 11:10) that he would not be burdensome to any of them (1 Cor. 9:12, 2 Cor. 11:9, 12:13) : he worked at his trade of tent-making. It was a hard sad life ; his trade was precarious, and did not suffice for even his scanty needs (2 Cor. 11:9). Beneath the enthusiasm of the preacher was the physical distress of hunger and cold and ill-usage (1 Cor. 4:11). In 'all his distress and affliction', however, he was comforted by the good news which Timothy brought him of the steadfastness of the Thessalonian converts ; the sense of depression which preceded it is indicated by the graphic phrase, 'Now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord' (1 Thess. 3:6-8). With Timothy came Silas, both of them bringing help for his material needs from the communities of Macedonia (2 Cor. 11:9, Acts 18:5; perhaps only from Philippi, Phil. 4:15), and it was apparently after their coming that the active preaching (2 Cor. 1:19) which roused the Jews to a more open hostility began.

Of that hostility an interesting incident is recorded in Acts 18:12-16 ; but a more important fact in Paul's life was the sending of a letter, the earliest of all his letters which have come down to us, to the community which he had founded at Thessalonica. Its genuineness, though perhaps not beyond dispute, is almost certain. Part of it is a renewed exhortation to steadfastness in face of persecutions, to purity of life, and to brotherly love ; part of it is apparently an answer to a question which had arisen among the converts when some of their number had died before the Parousia ; and part of it is a general summary of their duties as members of a Christian community.

It was probably followed, some months afterwards, by a second letter ; but the genuineness of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians has been much disputed. It proceeds upon the same general lines as the first, but appears to correct the misapprehensions which the first had caused as to the nearness of the Parousia.

After having lived probably about two years at Corinth Paul resolved, for reasons to which he himself gives no clue,to change the centre of his activity from Corinth to Ephesus. Like Corinth, Ephesus was a great commercial city with a vast mixed population ; it afforded a similar field for preaching, and it probably gave him increased facilities for communicating with the communities to which he was a spiritual father. It is clear from his epistles that his activity at Ephesus was on a much larger scale than the Acts of the Apostles indicates. Probably the author of the memoirs from which this part of the narrative in Acts was compiled was not at this time with him ; consequently there remain only fragmentary and for the most part unimportant anecdotes.

Paul's real life at this time is vividly pictured in the Epistles to the Corinthians. It was a life of hardship and danger and anxiety.

'Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place ; and we toil, working with our own hands ; being reviled, we bless ; being persecuted, we endure ; being defamed, we entreat ; we are made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things, even until now' (1 Cor. 4:11-13). I was almost more than he could bear: 'We were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we despaired even of life' (2 Cor. 1:8). He went about like one condemned to die, upon whom the sentence might at any moment be carried out (2 Cor. 1:9). Once, at least, it seemed as though the end had actually come, for he had to fight with beasts in the arena (1 Cor. 15:32) ; and once, if not on the same occasion, he was only saved by Prisca and Aquila, 'who for his life laid down their own necks' (Rom. 164).

What filled a larger place in Paul's thoughts than the 'perils' of either the past or the present was the 'care of all the churches'. He was the centre round which a system of communities revolved ; and partly by letters, partly by sending his companions, and partly by personal visits, he kept himself informed of their varied concerns, and endeavoured to give a direction to their life.

Paul probably went from Ephesus to the churches of Galatia and others in Asia Minor. He wrote the Epistle to the Galatians and the first to the Corinthians. About the particulars, however, of his relations with these communities at this time there are differences of opinion. Seldom do we find more than two of the better known authors agreeing on any view.

An emeute which occurred at Ephesus was, according to Acts, the occasion if not the cause of his leaving that city ; 'a great door and effectual had been opened for him' there (1 Cor. 169), and the growth of the new religion had caused an appreci able diminution in the trade of those who profited by the zeal of the worshippers at the temple (Acts 1023 to 20 i). Paul went overland to Troas, where, as at Ephesus, 'a door was opened unto him in the Lord' (2 Cor. 2;12) ; but the thought of Corinth was stronger than the wish to make a new community. He was eager to meet Titus, and to hear of the effect of his (now lost) letter ; and he went on into Macedonia. It is at this point of his life more than at any other that he reveals to us his inner history. At Ephesus he had been hunted almost to death ; he had carried his life in his hand ; and, 'even when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no relief, but we were afflicted on every side ; without were fightings, within were fears' (2 Cor. 7:5). But though the 'outward man was decaying, the inward man was renewed day by day' ; and the climax of splendid paradoxes which he wrote soon afterwards to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 6:3-10) was not a rhetorical ideal, but the story of his actual life. After a time Titus came with news which gladdened Paul's heart (2 Cor. 7:7). He had been well received at Corinth. The letter had made a deep impression. The admonitions had been listened to. The Corinthians had repented of their conduct. They had rid themselves of him that did the wrong', and Paul was 'of good courage concerning them' (2 Cor. 7:8-16). He then wrote the second of his extant letters to them, which was sent by Titus and the unknown 'brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches', and who had been elected by the churches to travel with Paul and his company (2 Cor. 8:18-19).

It was probably in the course of this journey that Paul went beyond the borders of Macedonia into the neighbouring province of Illyricum (Rom. 15:19); but his real goal was Corinth. For the third time he went there, and, overcoming the scruples of his earlier visits, he was the guest of Gaius, in whose house the meetings of the community were held (Rom. 16:23).

Of the incidents of Paul s visit to Corinth no record remains ; Acts does not even mention it. It was the culminating point, however, of his intellectual activity ; for in the course of it he wrote the greatest of all his letters, the Epistle to the Romans. As the body of that epistle throws an invaluable light upon the tenor of his preaching at this time to the communities, among which that of Rome can hardly have been singular, so the salutations at the end, whether they be assumed to be an integral part of the whole or not, are a wonderful revelation of the breadth and intimacy of his relations with the individual members of those communities.

But that which was as much in his mind as either the great question of the relation of faith to the law or the needs of individual converts in the Christian communities was the collection of alms 'for the poor among the saints that were at Jerusalem' (Rom. l5:26). The communities of Palestine had probably never ceased to be what the first disciples were, communities of paupers in a pauperised country, and consequently dependent upon external help.

All through his missionary journeys Paul had remembered the injunction which had sealed his compact with 'the three' (Gal. 2:10). In Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1), among the poor and persecuted churches of Macedonia (Rom. 15:26, 2 Cor. 8:1-4), at Corinth, and in Achaia (1 Cor. 16:1-14, 2 Cor. 8 and 9), the Gentiles who had been made partakers with the Jews in spiritual things had been effectually told that 'they owed to them also to minister unto them in carnal things' (Rom. 15:27).

The contributions were evidently on a large scale ; and Paul, to prevent the charges of malversation which were sometimes made against him, associated with himself in the matter of this grace a person chosen by the churches themselves (2 Cor. 8:19-21, 12:17-18); some have thought that all the persons whose names are mentioned in Acts 20:4 were delegates of their respective churches for this purpose.

Paul resolved to go to Jerusalem himself with this material testimony of the brotherly feeling of the Gentile communities, and then, having no more any place in Greece, to go to the new mission fields of Rome and the still farther West ( Rom. 16:23-25). He was not certain that his peace-offering would be acceptable to the Jewish Christians, and he had reason to apprehend violence from the unbelieving Jews. His departure from Corinth, like that from Ephesus, was probably hastened by danger to his life ; and, instead of going direct to Jerusalem (an intention which seems to be implied in Rom. 15:25), he and his companions took a circuitous route round the coasts of the Aegean Sea. His course lay through Philippi, Troas, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Miletus, where he took farewell of the elders of the community at Ephesus in an address of which some reminiscences are probably preserved in Acts 20:18-35. Thence he went, by what was probably an ordinary route of commerce, to the Syrian coast, and at last he reached Jerusalem.

The narrative which Acts gives of the incidents of Paul's life at Jerusalem is full of grave difficulties. It leaves altogether in the background what Paul himself mentions as his chief reason for making the visit ; and it relates that he accepted the advice which was given him to avail him self of the custom of vicarious vows, in order to show, by his conformity to prevalent usages, that 'there was no truth' in the reports that he had told the Jews 'not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs' (Acts 21:20-26). If this narrative be judged by the principles which Paul proclaims in the Epistle to the Galatians, it seems hardly credible. He had broken with Judaism, and his whole preaching was a preaching of the 'righteousness which is of faith', as an antithesis to, and as superseding, the 'righteousness which is of the law'. Now he is represented as resting his defence on his conformity to the law, on his being 'a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees', who was called in question for the one point only that he believed, as other Pharisees believed, in the resurrection of the dead.

What colouring of a later time, derived from later controversies, has been spread over the original outline of the history cannot now be told. Whilst on the one hand the difficulties of the narrative as it stands cannot be overlooked, on the other hand no faithful historian will undertake, in the absence of all collateral evidence, the task of discriminating that which belongs to a contemporary testimony and that which belongs to a subsequent recension. From this uncertainty the general concurrence of even adverse critics excepts the 'we' section (Acts 27:1-28:16); whoever may have been the author of those we sections, and whatever may be the amount of revision to which they have been subjected, they seem to have for their basis the diary or itinerary of a companion of Paul, and the account of the voyage contains at least the indisputable fact that Paul went to Rome.

Paul's life at Rome and all the rest of his history are enveloped in mists from which no single gleam of certain light emerges. Almost every writer, whether apologetic or sceptical, has some new hypothesis respecting it ; and the number and variety of the hypotheses which have been already framed is a warning, until new evidence appears, against adding to their number. The preliminary questions which have to be solved before any hypothesis can be said to have a foundation in fact are themselves extremely intricate ; and their solution depends upon considerations to which, in the absence of positive and determining evidence, different minds tend inevitably to give different interpretations. The chief of these preliminary questions is the genuineness of the epistles bearing Paul's name, which, if they be his, must be assigned to the later period of his life - viz. , those to the Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians, to Philemon, to Timothy, and to Titus. As these epistles do not stand or fall together, but give rise in each case to separate discussion, the theories vary according as they are severally thought to be genuine or false. The least disputed is the Epistle to Philemon ; but it is also the least fruitful in either doctrine or biographical details. Next to it in the order of general acceptance is the Epistle to the Philippians. The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians have given rise to disputes which cannot easily be settled in the absence of collateral evidence, since they mainly turn partly on the historical probability of the rapid growth in those communities of certain forms of theological speculation, and partly on the psychological probability of the almost sudden de velopment in Paul's own mind of new methods of conceiving and presenting Christian doctrine. The pastoral epistles - viz. , those to Timothy and to Titus - have given rise to still graver questions, and are prob ably even less defensible.

Even if this preliminary question of the genuineness of the several epistles be decided in each instance in the affirmative, there remains the further question whether they or any of them belong to the period of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, and, if so, what they imply as to his history. It is held by many writers that they all belong to an earlier period of his life, especially to his stay at Caesarea (Acts 24:23, 24:27). It is held by other writers that they were all sent from Rome, and with some such writers it has become almost an article of faith that he was imprisoned there not once but twice. It is sometimes further supposed that in the interval between the first and second imprisonments he made his intended journey to Spain (Rom. 15:24 ; it is apparently regarded as an accomplished fact by the author of the Muratorian fragment) ; and that either before or after his journey to Spain he visited again the communities of the Aegean seaboard which are mentioned in the pastoral epistles.

The place and manner and occasion of Paul's death are not less uncertain than the facts of his later life. The only fragment of approximately contemporary evidence is a vague and rhetorical passage in the letter of Clement of Rome (100:5) : 'Paul . . . having taught the whole world righteousness, and having come to the goal of the West ((Tri TO rtpfj.a Trjs 5i!<rews), and having borne witness (yuaprupT^ras [martyresas]) before the rulers, so was released from the world and went to the Holy Place, having become the greatest example of patience'. The two material points in this passage (1) 'the limit of the West', (2) 'having borne witness', are fruitful sources of controversy. The one may mean either Rome or Spain, the other may mean either 'having testified' or 'having suffered martyrdom'. It is not until towards the end of the second century, after many causes had operated both to create and to crush traditions, that mention is made of Paul as having suffered about the same time as Peter at Rome ; but the credibility of the assertion is weakened by its connection in the same sentence with the [rhetorical] statement that Peter and Paul [both taught in Italy in the same spirit as they planted and taught in Corinth] (Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Eusebius, HE 2:25). A Roman presbyter named Gaius speaks, a few years later, of the martyr-tombs of the two apostles being visible at Rome (quoted by Eusebius, l.c.] ; but neither this testimony nor that of Tertullian ( De praescr. 36, Scorp. 15, Adv. Marc. 4:5) is sufficient to establish more than the general probability that Paul suffered martyrdom. There is no warrant for going beyond this, as almost all Paul's biographers have done, and finding an actual date for his martyrdom in the so-called Neronian persecution of 64 A.D. 1

The chronology of the rest of Paul's life is as uncertain as the date of his death. We have no means of knowing when he was born, or how long he lived, or at what dates the several events of his life took place.

The nearest approach to a fixed point from which the dates of some events may be calculated is that of the death of Festus, which may probably, though by no means certainly, be placed in 62 A.D. ; even if this date were certainly known, new evidence would be required to determine the length of time during which he held office ; all that can or could be said is that Paul was sent to Rome some time before the death of Festus in 62 A.D. (cp further CHRONOLOGY, 64-84). 2

1 The 'Martyrium Pauli' in Zacagni, Coll. mon. vet. eccl., Rome, 1698, p. 535, gives not only details but also an exact date - viz., 29th June 66 A.D. ; the day has been adopted by the Latin Church as the common anniversary of St. Peter and St. Paul. All the early evidence which bears upon the point has been collected by Kunze, Praecipua patrum ecclesiasticorum testimonia quae ad mortem Pauli apostoli spectant, Gottingen, 1848 [cp Harnack, Chronologic (1897), pp. 240-3].

2 How widely opinions differ as to the rest of the chronology may be seen by a reference to the chronological table which is given by Meyer in the introduction to his Commentary on the Acts, and after him by Farrar, St. Paul, vol. ii. 624. The literature of the subject is extensive; the most convenient summary of the discussions, for English readers, will be found in the introduction to Meyer s Commentary just mentioned of which there is an ET [cp Harnack, Chron. pp. 233-9 > Meyer- Wendt, Kommentar AG(^ 1899, pp. 53-60; Th. Zahn, Kinl. in das NT( l ) ii. (1900) 629-47] an d CHRONOLOGY, S 64-84.]

Of his personality Paul himself tells us as much as need be known when he quotes the adverse remarks of his opponents at Corinth : 'his letters, they say are weighty and strong : but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account' (2 Cor. 10:10). The Christian romance-writer elaborated the picture, of which some traits may have come to him from tradition : a man small in stature, bald-headed, bow-legged, stout, close-browed, with a slightly prominent nose, full of grace ; for at one time he seemed like a man, at another time he had the face of an angel ( 'Acta Pauli et Thecla', 100:3 ; Tisch. Acta Apost. Apocr. 41); and the pagan caricaturist speaks of him in similar terms, as 'bald in front, with a slightly prominent nose, who had taken an aerial journey into the third heaven' (pseudo-Lucian, Philopatris, 100:12). 1

That Paul was sometimes stricken down by illness is clear from Gal. 4:13 (some have thought also from 2 Cor. 2:4) ; and at his moments of greatest exaltation [not only did he enjoy visions and revelations, being elevated into the third heaven, paradise, where he heard inexpressible words ; but also] 'there was given to him a stake in the flesh . . . that he should not be exalted overmuch' (2 Cor. 12:7). The nature of this special weakness has given rise to many conjectures ; the most probable is that it was one of those obscure nervous disorders which are allied to epilepsy and sometimes mistaken for it. 2

From the first, both in Germany and elsewhere, the Tubingen criticism met with strong opposition as well as with cordial acceptance. The right wing, which protested against it on behalf of tradition, spared (and continues to spare) no effort to recover the invaded territory and to protect it, so far as may be, from further attack. The most powerful champion of this conservative attitude in recent years has been Th. Zahn, author of the Einleitung in das neue Testament (2 vols. 1897-99, <- 1900).

Those who were not so timid about breaking with traditional views or with opinions that had been judged to be no longer tenable, inclined, nevertheless, especially in recent years, to consider that Baur had gone to the extreme limit of criticism and to think that some retreat, along part of the line at least, from his extravagances was necessary. They did not shut their eyes to the great merits of the Tubingen school ; but neither would they be blind to their faults and shortcomings which seemed to admit of being summed up in the single word 'exaggeration'. They called themselves by choice the critical school, and could appropriately enough be described as indeed 'moderately' so. Those who have in recent years gone farthest in this reactionary direction (or, let us call it, retrogression) are, in practice, A. Julicher in his Einleitung in das NT, 1894, 1901* 2 . and, in theory, A. Harnack in the 'Preface' (which is not to be confounded with the contents which follow) to his Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur (ACL 2:1, 1897).

1 Some early representations of him on gilded glasses and sarcophagi still remain ; accounts of them will be found in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. Chr. Ant. 2:1621 ; Schultze, Die Katakomben, Leipsic, 1882, p. 149.

Later criticism that may fairly enough be called 'advanced', in the sense that its conclusions differ more than those of others from traditional opinion starts from the same principles as the 'critical school', though its opponents prefer such expressions for it as 'scepticism', the 'radical', or the 'Dutch school', 'hypercriticism', 'uncriticism' or (as Julicher has it recently) 'pseudo-criticism'. The way for it was prepared, not to speak of Evanson (1792), by Bruno Bauer, A. Pierson, S. A. Naber, and others.

By Bruno Bauer in his three volumes entitled Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe (1850-52), and again after a silence of many years in his Christus und die Caesaren (1877 ; see especially PP- 37 -387); by A. Pierson in De Bergrede en andere syno/>- tische fragine nten (1878; pp. 98-110); by him and Naber in their Verisimilia (1886); by others in dissertations and discourses on various public occasions in Holland of which some account is to be found in _// / , 1883, pp. 593-618 ; 1884, pp. 562-3 ; 1886, pp, 4i8-444(L)mch : W. C. van Manen, Het Nieuwe Testament sedert 1859, 1886, pp. 89-126, 225-7, 265).

The Pauline question, however, was first brought forward in a strictly scientific form by A. D. Loman of Amsterdam in his 'Quaestiones Paulinae', published in Th. T in 1882, 1883, 1886. This broadly-based study, however, in the beginning still intimately connected with the writer s much discussed hypothesis of the symbolical character of the Gospel history and the person of Jesus, Loman did not live to complete. The portions published by him were the 'Prolegomena' to a book on the principal epistles of Paul, in which the necessity for a revision of the foundations of our knowledge of the original Paulinism and the expediency, for this purpose, of starting from the Epistle to the Galatians are fully set forth (1882, pp. 141-185, cp 593-616); a first chapter in which the external evidence for and against the genuineness of that Epistle is exhaustively discussed (1882, pp. 302-328, 452-487; 1883, pp. 14-57 ; 1886, pp. 42-55), and a second chapter in which the same question is considered in the light of the Canon (1886, pp. 55-113, cp 319-349, 387-406). At a later date an unfinished study, De Brief aan de Galatiers, was posthumously added to these as Loman's Nalatenschap (1899). Meanwhile various scholars - J. C. Matthes, J. van Loon, H. U. Meyboom, J. A. Bruins had signified their agreement with him wholly or partially, and he was followed in the path of advancing criticism he had opened up, as regards the question of the sources of our knowledge of Paul, his life and his work, though without for a moment committing themselves to Loman's hypothesis respecting the gospel history, by Rudolf Steck of Bern, D. E. J. Volter of Amsterdam, and W. C. van Manen of Leyden.

See especially his Paulus in three parts : De Handelingen der Apostelen (Acts), 1890; De brief aan de Romeinen, 1891 ; De brieven aan de Korinthiers, 1896 ; followed by a condensed summary of the results arrived at in his Handleiding voor de Oudchristelyke letterkunde, 1900. For a somewhat fuller survey of the earlier history of this criticism and of the reception it met with in the learned world the reader may consult his articles entitled 'A Wave of Hypercriticism' in Exp.T^, 1898, pp. 205-211, 257-9, 3M-9-

The same critical principles of the 'later criticism' - recently adopted also by Prof. W. B. Smith of Tulane University, New Orleans (see ROMANS) - have likewise been in some measure followed, however unconsciously in the main, by all those who at one time or another have sought, by postulating redactions, interpolations, and additions, to escape from the difficulties in the way of accepting the Pauline authorship of one or more of the 'Principal epistles'.

J 1 To such an extent indeed as would justify him in saying without immodesty quorum pars magna fui.]

(1) with regard to all the four epistles : the view of J. H. A. Michelsen (Th. T, 1873, p. 421) that in these we have the original epistles of Paul published after his death with elucidations and notes ; also conjectures by Straatman, Baljon (1884) and Sulze (Prof. Kirch. - Ztg., 1888, pp. 978-85).

(2) So far as Romans is concerned, we have the conjecture of Semler, Baur, and others, that chaps. 15-16, wholly or in part, do not belong to the fourteen preceding chapters, and, according to many, are not from the hand of Paul ; that of C. H. Weisse, that chaps. 9-11, of Straatman, that chaps. 12-14, do not belong to the original epistle ; of Laurent (1866), that the epistle at a later date was furnished with a number of marginal glosses ; of Renan, that it was issued by Paul in more than one form (e.g., 1-11 + 15, 1-14 + part of 16) ; of Michelsen (Th.T, 1886-7) that we have to distinguish five or six editions in the original text ; of E. Spitta (1893) that it is a combination of two letters written by Paul at different times to the Christians of Rome, one before and one after his visit to that city.

(3) With respect to 1 and 2 Corinthians, we have the conjecture of Semler (1776), E. J. Greve (1794), Weber (1798), C. H. Weisse (1855), Hausrath (1870). Michelsen (1873), Baljon (1884), O. Prleiderer (1887), W. Bruckner (1890), M. Krenkel (1890), P. W. Schmiedel (1892), J. Cramer (1893), A. Halmel (1894), J. Weiss (1894), H. J. Holtzmann (1894), H. Lisco (1896) that 2 Cor. is made up of two or more pieces which originally did not belong to one another ; of Lipsius (1873), Hagge (1876), Spitta (1893), Clemen (1894) that the same holds true of i Cor. ; and of Straatman (1863-5) and J. A. Bruins (1892) that both epistles contain a vast number of interpolations.

(4) As regards Gal., the same opinion has been held, by Weisse, Sulze, Baljon (1889) and Cramer (1890) - the last two in their commentaries.

Yet, however obvious in all this be the unconscious preparation for and transition to the criticism spoken of in 34, this last does not occupy itself with such conjectures as those just suggested (in 35), unless perhaps in special cases, and never with the definite object of escaping by such means from difficulties touching what is called the genuineness of the Epistles. It is ready to submit all such hypotheses to a candid examination, but does not value expedients whereby objections can be silenced temporarily. It does not start from the belief that the non plus ultra of critical emancipation has been realised by the Tubingen school ; but neither does it think that that school went too far. For it, there is nothing a priori 'too far' in this field ; and it believes that criticism is ever in duty bound to criticise its own work and to repair its defects. It recognises no theoretical limit whatsoever that can reasonably be fixed. It ranks the critical labours of Baur and his school, notwithstanding all shortcomings and defects, far above those of older and less critically moulded scholars. It wishes nothing better than, mutatis mutandis, to continue the research pursued by the Tubingen school, and, standing on the shoulders of Baur and others, and thus pre sumably with the prospect of seeing clearer and farther, to advance another stage, as long a stage as possible. towards a real knowledge of Christian antiquity.

That is not to be attained, in the judgment of this school of critics, by a simple return to the old views, by accepting the opinions of those scholars who busied themselves with researches of this kind before Baur (in the first decades of the 19th century or in the last of the 18th), nor yet by adopting the traditional conceptions current at a still earlier period whether amongst candid Protestants or thinking Roman Catholics. No error committed by a younger generation can ever make to be true anything in the opinions of an older generation which has once been discovered to have been false.

Still less does the criticism with which we are now dealing cherish hopes from any mediating policy of 'give and take'. It has found that it does not avail, in estimating the Tubingen theory, in one point or another, to plead 'extenuating circumstances' in favour of tradition whether churchly or scientific, and to offer here or there an amendment on the sketch drawn by Baur (or others after him) of the state of schools and parties in Old Christianity, or to extend the number of the 'indisputably genuine' epistles of Paul from four to six or seven (the 'principal epistles' + Philippians, Philemon and 1 Thess. ), eight ( + 2 Thess. or Col.), nine ( + both 2 Thess. and Col.), ten (+ Eph. ), if not even augmented by genuine Pauline fragments in the Pastoral Epistles. The defects of the 'tendency criticism' passed upon the NT writings and other documents of early Christianity which have come down to us, whether the criticism in which Baur led the way or that of others like Volkmar, Holsten, S. Davidson, Hatch (who followed Baur, while introducing into his criticism corrections more or less far-reaching), demand a more drastic course. It is needful to break not only with the dogma of the 'principal epistles' in the order suggested by Baur and afterwards accepted by Hatch - Gal., 1 and 2 Cor., Rom. but also with the dogma of there being four epistles of Paul in any order with regard to the genuineness of which no question ought to be entertained. It was a great defect in the criticism of the Tubingen school that it set out from this assumption without thinking of justifying it. It can be urged in excuse, that at the time no one doubted its justice ; Evanson was forgotten and Bruno Bauer had not yet arisen ; but none the less the defect cannot be regarded as other than serious. It has wrought much mischief and must be held responsible for the song of triumph now being prematurely uttered even by those whose opposition to criticism is by no means trenchant, the burden of which is, 'Tubingen itself has alleged nothing against these epistles'. The latest school of advanced criticism has learned not to rejoice over this but to regret an unfinished piece of work that ought to have been taken in hand long ago and demands to be taken up now. It regrets that Baur and his followers should not have stopped to consider the origin of the 'principal epistles'. It holds that criticism should investigate, not only those books which have been doubted for a longer or shorter period, but also even those that hitherto - it may even be, by every one - have been held to be beyond all doubt, whether they be canonical or uncanonical, sacred or profane. Criticism is not at liberty to set out from the genuineness - or the spuriousness - of any writing that is to be used as evidence in historical research as long as the necessary light has not been thrown upon it, and least of all may it do so after some or many writings of the same class have already been actually found to be pseudepigrapha. It was and is in the highest degree a one-sided and arbitrary proceeding to go with Baur upon the assumption of the genuineness of the 'principal epistles' as fully established, and in accordance with this to assume that Acts must take a subordinate place in comparison with them. It is not a priori established that Paul cannot be mistaken, at least as long as we do not know with certainty whether he and the writer of the epistles that have come down to us under his name are indeed one and the same. The investigation of Acts must be carried on independ ently of that of the Epistles, just as that of the Epistles must be independent of that of Acts. This rule must be applied in the case of every epistle separately as well as in connection with the other epistles which we have learned to recognise as belonging to the same group. The four 'principal epistles' are not a fixed datum by which Acts and other Pauline writings can be tested unless one is previously able to prove their genuineness. This point has not been taken into account by the Tubingen school - greatly to their loss. As soon as it is observed, it becomes the task of criticism to subject to a strict examination the principal epistles one by one. from this point of view. What, then, is the criterion which may be employed in this investigation ? None of the so-called external evidences. These do not avail here, however valuable may be what they have to tell us often as to the opinion of antiquity concerning these writings. So much Baur and his followers had already long ago learned to recognise. The 'critical school' had confessed it, even by the mouth of those among its adherents who had found themselves nearest to the thorough-going defenders of tradition. Where then must the determining consideration be looked for ? In the direction where in such circumstances it is always wont to be found : in the so-called 'internal' evidence. It is internal criticism that must speak the last, the so far as possible conclusive, word.

The demand seemed to many too hard, as regarded the 'principal epistles'. The Tubingen school and the 'critical' school alike shrank from making it. The 'progressive' criticism which had meanwhile come into being, submitted to the inevitable. It addressed itself to the task imposed. To the question, with what result ? the answer, unfortunately, cannot be said to be wholly unanimous. True, this is a disadvantage under which the opposing party labours no less than the other. There is no criticism in the judgments of which no trace can be found of what can be called a subjective side.

Viewed broadly, and with divergences in points of detail left out of account, what the recent criticism now described has to say regarding Acts is in substance as follows. The book professes to be a sequel to the third canonical gospel, designed in common with it to inform a certain Theophilus otherwise unknown to us, or in his person any recent convert to Christianity, more precisely with regard to the things in which he has been instructed (Acts 1:1-5, cp Lk. 1:1-4, 24:36-53). We find in it in accordance with this, a by no means complete, yet at the same time (at least, in some measure) an orderly and continuous sketch of the fortunes of the disciples of Jesus, after his resurrection and ascension ; of their appearances in Jerusalem and elsewhere ; and in particular, of the life and work of Peter, in the first part (Acts 1-12), and more fully and amply of the life and work of Paul, in the second part (13-28).

Even leaving aside any comparison with the Pauline epistles, we cannot regard the contents of Acts, viewed as a whole, and on their own merits, as a true and credible first-hand narrative of what had actually occurred, nor yet as the ripe fruit of earnest historical research - not even where, in favourable circumstances, the author might occasionally have been in a condition to give this. The book bears in part a legendary-historical, in part an edifying and apologetical character. The writer s intention is to instruct Theophilus concern ing the old Christian past, as that presented itself to his own mind after repeated examination, to increase the regard and affection of his readers for Christianity, and at the same time to show forth how from the first, although hated by the Jews, this religion met with encouragement on the part of the Romans. Of a 'tendency', in the strict sense of the word, as understood by the Tubingen school, there is nothing to be seen. The book does not aim at the reconciliation of conflicting parties, Petrinists and Paulinists, nor yet at the exaltation of Paul or at casting his Jewish adversaries into the shade, or at placing him on a level with Peter.

Of the substantial unity of the work there can be no question. We have not here any loose aggregation of fragments derived from various sources. Still less, however, can we fail to recognise that older authorities have been used in its composition. Amongst these are prominent two books which we may appropriately call (a) Acts of Paul, and (b) Acts of Peter. From a is derived in the main what we now read in 1:23 (D), 4:36-37, 6:1-15, 7:51-8:3, 9:1-30, 11:19-30, 13-28 ; from b, more particularly, much of chaps. 1-12.

(a) The first and older of the two books included mainly a sketch of the life and work of Paul, according to the ideas of those Christians who placed him high, and who, as compared with others, deserve to be called progressive. With this was worked in - but not incorporated without change (unless the corrections which can still be traced are to be laid to the account of the author of Acts) - a journey narrative, very possibly the work of Luke the companion of Paul. See 11:27 (D), 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, 27:1-28:16.

(b) The second book, written in view of the Acts of Paul just described, was an attempt to allow more justice to be done to tradition and more light to be thrown upon Peter.

Perhaps the author of the entire work, as we now know it, in addition to oral tradition, had still other means of information at his disposal (such as Flavius Josephus) and borrowed here and there a detail, but certainly not much, from the Pauline epistles.

Alternately free and fettered in relation to his authorities, the author sometimes used their language, yet, as a rule, employed his own. He followed in their footsteps for the most part, yet frequently went his own way, transposing and correcting, supplementing and abridging what he had found in others. To ascertain the details of the process in every case is no longer possible. On the chief points, a fuller discussion will be found in W. C. van Manen, Paulus : 1. De Handelingen der Apostelen, 1890.

The spirit in which Lk. set about his work is that of budding Catholicism, which has room alike for 'Paul' and for 'Peter', and does not shrink from bringing to the notice of the faithful a writing - the Acts of Paul just referred to - devoted to the commemoration and glorification of the apostle of the heretics as Tertullian still called him, albeit clothed in a new dress whereby at the same time reverent homage is rendered to the tradition of the ancients.

Lk. s true name remains unknown. His home was probably in Rome; but perhaps it may have been somewhere in Asia Minor. He flourished about the second quarter of the second century. There is no necessity for doubting the correctness of the representation that he is one and the same with the author of the Third Gospel.

In the clays when the contents of sacred books were held exempt from criticism, the historical value of Acts was much overrated ; more recently under the influence of Tubingen criticism it has been unduly depreciated. It is entitled to recognition in so far as it is a rich source of information as to how the Christianity of the first 30 or 35 years after the crucifixion was spoken about, estimated, and taught, in influential circles, about the years 130-150 A.D. It is entitled to recognition also, in so far as we are still in a position to trace, in what has been taken over with or without alteration from older works, how it was that men of that period thought about implied, or expressly mentioned persons, things, and relations. In estimating the value of details, it is incumbent on us always, so far as possible, to distinguish between the original historical datum, the valuable substance of a trustworthy tradition, and the one-fold, two-fold, threefold, or it may be manifold clothing with which this has been invested by later views and opinions, and in too many cases, unfortunately, concealed by them, in such a manner that it is not always possible, even for the keenest eye, to discriminate as could be wished between truth and fiction.

With respect to the canonical Pauline epistles, the later criticism here under consideration has learned to recognise that they are none of them by Paul: neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or ten, nor seven or eight, nor yet even the four so long 'universally' regarded as unassailable. They are all, without distinction, pseudepigrapha (this, of course, not implying the least depreciation of their contents). The history of criticism, the breaking up of the group which began as early as 1520, already pointed in this direction. No distinction can any longer be allowed between 'principal epistles' and minor or deutero-Pauline ones. The separation is purely arbi trary, with no foundation in the nature of the things here dealt with. The group - not to speak of Hebrews at present - when compared with the Johannine epistles, with those of James, Jude, Ignatius, Clement, with the gospel of Matthew, or the martyrdom of Polycarp, bears obvious marks of a certain unity - of having originated in one circle, at one time, in one environment ; but not of unity of authorship, even if a term of years - were it even ten or twenty - be allowed. It is impossible, on any reasonable principle, to separate one or more pieces from the rest. One could immediately with equal right pronounce an opposite judgment and condemn - e.g. , Romans or Corinthians, compared with the rest, as under suspicion.- Every partition is arbitrary. However one may divide them, there will always remain (within the limits of each group, and on a comparison of the contents of any two or three assumed classes), apart from corrections of subordinate importance, clearly visible traces of agreement and of divergence - even on a careful examination of the famous four: Rom., i and 2 Cor., Gal. There is no less distinction in language, style, religious or ethical contents between i and 2 Cor. on the one hand, and Rom. and Gal. on the other, than there is between Rom. and Phil. , Col. and Philem. On the contrary, in the last two cases the agreement is undeniably greater.

Tradition does not assert the Pauline origin of the 'principal epistles' more loudly than it does that of the pastoral or of the 'minor' epistles. External evidences plead at least as strongly, or, to speak more accurately, just as weakly, for the latter as for the former. The internal point just as strongly in the case of Rom. , 1 and 2 Cor. , and Gal. , as they do elsewhere to the one conclusion that they are not the work of Paul. This deliverance rests mainly on the following considerations, each of them a conclusion resulting from independent yet intimately connected researches.

The 'principal epistles', like all the rest of the group, present themselves to us as epistles ; but this is not their real character in the ordinary and literary meaning of the word. They are not letters originally intended for definite persons, despatched to these, and afterwards by publication made the common property of all. On the contrary, they were, from the first, books ; treatises for instruction, and especially for edification, written in the form of letters in a tone of authority as from the pen of Paul and other men of note who belonged to his entourage: 1 Cor. by Paul and Sosthenes, 2 Cor. by Paul and Timothy, Gal. (at least in the exordium) by Paul and all the brethren who were with him ; so also Phil., Col. and Philem. , by Paul and Timothy, 1 and 2 Thess. by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. The object is to make it appear as if these persons were still living at the time of composition of the writings, though in point of fact they belonged to an earlier generation. Their 'epistles' accordingly, even in the circle of their first readers, gave themselves out as voices from the past. They were from the outset intended to exert an influence in as wide a circle as possible ; more particularly, to be read aloud at the religious meetings for the edification of the church, or to serve as a standard for doctrine and morals. Hence it comes that, among other consequences, we never come upon any trace in tradition of the impression which the supposed letters of Paul may have made - though, of course, each of them must, if genuine, have produced its own impression - upon the Christians at Rome, at Corinth, in Galatia ; and the same can be said of all the other canonical epistles of Paul. Hence, also, the surprising and otherwise unaccountable features in the addresses of the epistles : 'to all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints' (Rom. 1:7), 'to the church of God which is at Corinth, them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in all places, theirs and ours' (1 Cor. 1:2); 'to the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints in the whole of Achaia' (2 Cor. 1:1), 'to the churches of Galatia' (Gal. 1:2). The artificial character of the epistolary form comes further to light with special clearness when we direct our attention to the composition of the writings. In such manner real letters are never written.

i. In a very special degree does this hold true no doubt of 2 Cor. Many scholars, belonging in other respects to very different schools, have been convinced for more than a century and have sought to persuade others that this epistle was not written at one gush or even at intervals ; that it consists of an aggregation of fragments which had not originally the same destination.

ii. 1 Cor. allows us to see no less clearly that there underlie the finished epistle as known to us several greater or smaller treatises, having such subjects as the following : -

parties and divisions in the church (1:10-3:23),

the authority of the apostles (4),

unchastity (5-6),

married and unmarried life (7),

the eating of that which has been offered to idols (8-11:1),

the veiling of women (11:2-15 [11:16]),

love feasts (11:17-34),

spiritual gifts (12-14),

the resurrection (15),

a collection for the saints (16:1-4)

- other passages being introduced relating to

the superiority of the preaching of the cross above the wisdom of this world: (1:18-31),

the spirit in which Paul had laboured (2:1-16),

the right of litigation between Christians (6:1-11),

circumcised and uncircumcised, bond and free (7:18-24),

the apostolic service (9),

Christian love (13).

iii. With regard to Rom. it is even more obvious that the author accomplished his task with the help of writings, perhaps older 'epistles', treatises, sayings handed down whether orally or in writing - although we must admit, as in the case of so many other books, both older and more recent, that we are not in a position to indicate with any detail what has been borrowed from this source and what from that, or what has been derived from no previous source whatever, and is the exclusive property of the author, editor, or adapter.

iv. With Gal. the case is in some respects different, and various reasons lead us, so far as the canonical text is concerned, to think of a catholic adaptation of a letter previously read in the circle of the Marcionites, although we are no longer in a position to restore the older form. We have in view the employ ment of such words as Peter (IleYpo? [petros]) alongside of Cephas (Kr)<|>as [kephas]), of two forms of the name Jerusalem ( lepocroAv/ua [hierosoluma] alongside of Iepou (7aArjjn [hierousalem]), the presence of discrepant views (as in 3:7, 3:29 and 3;16) of Abraham's seed ; the zeal against circumcision in 5:2-4, 6:12-13 alongside of the frank recognition that it is of no significance (5:6, 6:15) - the cases in which the ancients charged Marcion with having falsified the text, though the textual criticism of modern times has found it necessary to invert the accusation.

There are to be detected, accordingly, in the composition of the principal epistles phenomena which, whatever be the exact explanation arrived at in each case, all point at least to a peculiarity in the manner of origin of these writings which one is not accustomed to find, and which indeed is hardly conceivable, in ordinary letters.

The contents of the epistles, no less than the results of an attentive consideration of their form, lead to the conclusion that the 'principle epistles' cannot be the work of the apostle Paul.

i. Is it likely that Paul, a man of authority and recognised as such at the time, would have written to the Christians at Rome - men who were personally unknown to him - what, on the assumption of the genuineness of the epistle, we must infer he did write ? That he would have taken so exalted a tone, whilst at the same time forcing himself to all kinds of shifts in writing to his spiritual children at Corinth and in Galatia ? One cannot form to oneself any intelligible conception of his attitude either to the one or to the other ; nor yet of the mutual relations of the parties and schools which we must conceive to have been present and to some extent in violent conflict with one another if Paul really thought and said about them what we find in the 'principal epistles'.

ii. Even if we set all this aside, however, the doctrinal and religious-ethical contents betoken a development in Christian life and thought of such magnitude and depth as Paul could not possibly have reached within a few years after the crucifixion. So large an experience, so great a widening of the field of vision, so high a degree of spiritual power as would have been required for this it is impossible to attribute to him within so limited a time.

It does not avail as a way of escape from this diffi culty to assume, as some do, a slow development in the case of Paul whereby it becomes conceivable that when he wrote the 'principal epistles' he had reached a height which he had not yet attained fourteen or twenty years previously. There is no evidence of any such slow development as is thus assumed. It exists only in the imagination of exegetes who perceive the necessity of some expedient to remove difficulties that are felt though not acknowledged. Moreover, the texts speak too plainly in a diametrically opposite sense. It is only necessary to read the narrative of Paul's conversion as given by himself according to Gal. 1:10-16 in order to see this. The bigoted zealot for the law who persecuted the infant church to the death did not first of all attach himself to those who professed the new religion in order to become by little and little a reformer of their ideas and intuitions. On the contrary, on the very instant that he had suddenly been brought to a breach with his Jewish past, he publicly and at once came forward with all that was specially great and new in his preaching. The gospel he preached was one which he had received directly. It was not the glad tidings of the Messiah, the long expected One, who was to come to bless his people Israel ; it was the preaching of a new divine revelation, and this not communicated to him through or by man, but immediately from above, from God himself, God s Son revealed in him. With this revelation was at the same time given to him the clear insight and the call to go forth as a preacher to the Gentiles.

iii. Underlying the principal epistles there is, amongst other things, a definite spiritual tendency, an inherited type of doctrine (Rom. 6:17) - let us say the older Paulinism - with which the supposed readers had long been familiar. They are wont to follow it, now in childlike simplicity, now with eager enthusiasm, or to assail it, not seldom obstinately, with all sorts of weapons and from various sides. Some have already got beyond this and look upon Paulinism more as if it were a past stage, a surmounted point of view. One might designate them technically as Hyperpaulinists. They are met with especially amongst Paul s opponents at Corinth according to 1 and 2 Cor. Others remain in the rear or have returned to the old view, the Jewish or Jewish-Christian view which had preceded Paulinism. They are the Judaisers against whom above all others the Galatians are warned and armed. Both are groups which one can hardly imagine to oneself as subsisting, at least in the strength here supposed, during the life time of Paul. Plainly Paul is not a contemporary, but a figure of the past. He is the object or, if you will. the central point of all their zeal and all their efforts.

iv. Paulinism itself, as it is held up and defended in the 'principal epistles', apart from diversities in the elaboration of details by the various writers, is nothing more or less than the fruit of a thorough-going reformation of the older form of Christianity. Before it could be reached the original expectations of the first disciples of Jesus had to be wholly or partly given up. The conception of Jesus as the Messiah in the old Jewish meaning of the word had to give place to a more spiritual conception of the Christ the Son of God ; the old divine revelation given in the sacred writings of Israel had to make way for the newer revelation vouch safed immediately by God, in dreams and visions, by day and by night, and through the mediation, if media tion it can be called, of the Holy Ghost : the law had to yield to the gospel. For these things time - no little time was needed, even in days of high spiritual tension such as must have been those in which the first Christians lived and in which many are so ready to take refuge in order to be able to think it possible that the 'principal epistles', with their highly varied contents could have been written so soon after the death of Jesus as the theory of Pauline authorship compels us to assume.

v. Writers and readers, as we infer from the contents, live in the midst of problems which - most of them at all events - when carefully considered are seen not to belong to the first twenty or thirty years after the death of Jesus. We refer to questions as to the proper relation between law and gospel, justification by faith or by works, election and reprobation, Christ according to the flesh and Christ according to the Spirit, this Jesus or another, the value of circumcision, the use of clean or unclean things, sacrificial flesh, common flesh and other ordinary foods and drinks, the Sabbath and other holy days, revelations and visions, the married and the un married condition, the authority of the apostles, the marks of true apostleship and a multitude of others.

We must not be taken in by superficial appearances. Though Paul is represented as speaking, in reality he himself and his fellow apostles alike are no longer alive. Everywhere there is a retrospective tone. It is always possible to look back upon them and upon the work they achieved.

Paul has planted, another has watered (1 Cor. 3:6). He as a wise master-builder has laid the foundation ; another has built thereupon (3:10). He himself is not to come again (4:18). He and his fellow-apostles have already 'been made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and to men', God has 'set them forth as men doomed to death, lowest and last' - i.e., given them the appearance of being persons of the lowest sort (4:9). Their fight has been fought, their sufferings endured. It is already possible to judge as to the share of each in the great work. Paul, to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection 'last of all', 'the least of the apostles', has 'laboured more abundantly than they all' (15:8-10) ; he has run his course in the appointed way (9:26-27), a follower of Christ (even as others may be followers of himself, 11:1), whose walk in the world can readily stand comparison with that of others, even the most highly placed in Christian circles (2 Cor. 1:12, 11:5, 12:11), who has been ever victorious, whom God has always led in triumph, making manifest the savour of his knowledge by him in every place ; unto God a sweet savour of Christ, by his coming forward testifying, as in the sight of God, of the sacrifice made by Christ in his death ; sufficient for all things (2:14-16) ; a pattern of long-suffering, patience, and perseverance, who had more to endure than any other man (4:8-10, 6:4-5, 7:5, 11:23-27), an ideal form whose sufferings have accrued to the benefit of others and been a source of comfort to many (4:10-11, 1:4-7).

vi. A special kind of Christian gnosis, a wisdom that far transcends the simplicity of the first disciples and their absorption with Messianic expectations haunts and occupies many of the more highly-developed minds (1 Cor. 1:17-31, 26:16 and elsewhere). In Rom. 9-11 the rejection of Israel is spoken of in a manner that cannot be thought to have been possible before the fall of the Jewish state in 70 A. D. The church is already con ceived of as exposed to bloody persecutions, whereas, during Paul s lifetime, so far as is known to us, no such had as yet arisen (Rom. 5:3-5, 8:17-39, 12:12, 12:14, 2 Cor. 1:3-7) ; she has undoubtedly been in existence for more than a few years merely, as is usually assumed, and indeed requires to be assumed, on the assumption of the genuineness of the epistles.

The church has already, from being in a state of spiritual poverty, come to be rich (1 Cor. 1:5). Originally in no position to sound the depths, consisting of a company of but little developed persons, the majority of its members though still in a certain sense 'carnal' are able to follow profound discussions on questions so difficult as those of speaking with tongues, prophecy, or the resurrection (1 Cor. 12-15). There are already 'perfect' ones who can be spoken to about the matters of the higher wisdom ; spiritual ones who can digest strong nourishment ; understand ing ones who have knowledge (2:6-16, 3:1-3, 10:15). The church is in possession of their traditions (11:2, 11:23, 15:3) : epistles of Paul which presented a picture of him different from the current tradition received from those who had associated with him (2 Cor. 1:13, 10:10). There is an ordered church life to the following of which the members are held bound. There are fixed and definite customs and usages - such as regular collections of charitable gifts (2 Cor. 9:13) or the setting apart, when required, of persons whose names were in good repute, and who had been chosen, by the laying on of hands (8:18-19).

In a word, the church has existed not for a few years merely. The historical background of the epistles, even of the principal epistles, is a later age. The Christianity therein professed, presupposed, and avowed, in a number of its details does not admit of being explained by refer ence to the period preceding the date of Paul's captivity or even that of his death in 64 A. D. Everything points to later days - at least the close of the first or the be ginning of the second century.

Necessary limitations of space do not allow of fuller elucidations here. The reader who wishes to do real justice to the view here taken of the question as to the genuineness of Paul s epistles will not stop at the short sketch given here, but will consult the following works among others : -

To the question as to the bearing of the conclusions of criticism upon our knowledge of the life and activity of Paul, the answer must frankly be that in the first instance the result is of a purely negative character. In truth, this is common to all the results of criticism when seriously applied. Criticism must always begin by pulling down everything that has no solid or enduring foundation.

Thus all the representations formerly current - alike in Roman Catholic and Protestant circles - particularly during the nineteenth century - regarding the life and work of Paul the apostle of Jesus Christ, of the Lord, of the Gentiles, must be set aside, in so far as they rest upon the illusory belief that we can implicitly rely on what we read in Acts and the 13 (14) epistles of Paul, or in the epistles alone whether in their entirety or in a restricted group of them. These representations are very many and - let it be added in passing - very various and discrepant in character : far from showing any resemblance to one another, they exhibit the most inconsistent proportions and features. But, however different they were, they all of them have disappeared ; they rested upon a foundation not of solid rock, but of shifting sand.

So, too, with all those surveys of Paulinism, the 'ideas', the 'theology', the 'system' of Paul, set forth in accordance with the voice of tradition, as derived from a careful study of the contents of Acts and the epistles, whether taken in their entirety or curtailed or limited to the 'principal epistles' alone. Irrevocably passed away, never more to be employed for their original purpose, are such sketches, whether on a large or on a smaller scale, whether large or narrow in their scope, sketches among which are many highly important studies, especially within the last fifty years. Henceforward, they possess only a historical interest as examples of the scientific work of an older school. They do not and could not give any faithful image or just account of the life and teaching of Paul, the right foundation being wanting.

This, however, does not mean, as some would have us believe, that the later criticism has driven history from the lists, banished Paul from the world of realities, and robbed us even of the scanty light which a somewhat older criticism had allowed us, to drive away the darkness as to the past of early Christianity. These are impossibilities. No serious critic has ever attempted them or sought to obscure any light that really shone. The question was and is simply this : what is it that can be truly called history ? Where does the light shine ? To see that one has been mistaken in one s manner of apprehending the past is not a loss but a gain. It is always better, safer, and more profitable, to know that one does not know, than to go on building on a basis that is imaginary.

The results of criticism, even of the most relentless criticism, thus appear to be after all not purely negative. Though at first sight they may, and indeed must, seem to be negative, they are not less positive in contents and tendency. The ultimate task of criticism is to build up, to diffuse light, to bring to men's knowledge the things that have really happened. As regards Paul s life and work, now that the foundations have been changed, it teaches us in many respects to judge in another sense than we have been accustomed to do. Far from banishing his personality beyond the pale of history, criticism seeks to place him and his labours in the juster light of a better knowledge. For this it is unable any longer in all simplicity to hold by the canonical Acts and epistles, or even to the epistles solely, or yet to a selection of them. The conclusion it has to reckon with is this :

(a) That we possess no epistles of Paul ; that the writings which bear his name are pseudepigrapha containing seemingly historical data from the life and labours of the apostle, which nevertheless must not be accepted as correct without closer examination, and are probably, at least for the most part, borrowed from Acts of Paul which also underlie our canonical book of Acts (see above, 37).

(b) Still less does the Acts of the Apostles give us, however incompletely, an absolutely historical narrative of Paul s career ; what it gives is a variety of narratives concerning him, differing in their dates and also in respect of the influences under which they were written. Historical criticism must, as far as lies in its power, learn to estimate the value of what has come down to us through both channels, Acts and the epistles, to compare them, to arrange them and bring them into consistent and orderly connection. On these conditions and with the help of these materials, the attempt may be made to frame some living conception of the life and work of the apostle, and of the manner in which the figure of the apostle was repeatedly recast in forms which superseded one another in rapid succession.

Towards this important work little more than first essays have hitherto been made. The harvest promises to be plentiful ; but the labourers as yet are too few. We must, for the time being, content ourselves with indicating briefly what seem to be the main conclusions.

Paul was the somewhat younger contemporary of Peter and other disciples of Jesus, and probably a Jew by birth, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia. At first his attitude towards the disciples was one of hostility. Later, originally a tent maker by calling, he cast in his lot with the followers of Jesus, and, in the service of the higher truth revealed through them, spent the remainder of a life of vicissitude as a wandering preacher. In the course of his travels he visited various lands : Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy. Tradition adds to the list a journey to Spain, then back to the East again, and once more westwards till at last his career ended in martyr dom at Rome. With regard to his journeys, we can in strictness speak with reasonable certainty and with some detail only of one great journey which he undertook towards the end of his life : from Troas to Philippi, back to Troas, Assos, Mitylene, Samos, Miletus, Rhodes, Patara, Tyre, Ptolemais, Cresarea, Jerusalem, back to Caesarea, Sidon, Myra, Fair Havens, Melita, Syracuse, Rhegium, Puteoli, Rome (Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, 27:1-28:16).

Perhaps at an earlier date he had been one of the first who, along with others of Cyprus and Gyrene, proclaimed to Jews and Gentiles outside of Palestine the principles and the hopes of the disciples of Jesus (Acts 11:19-20!). Possibly, indeed probably, we may infer further details of the same sort from what Lk. and the authors of the epistles have borrowed from the 'Acts of Paul', as to the places visited by Paul, and the measure of his success in each ; in which of them he met with opposition, in which with indifference ; what particular discouragements and adventures he en countered ; such facts as that he seldom or never came into contact with the disciples in Palestine ; that even after years had passed he was still practically a stranger to the brethren dwelling in Jerusalem ; that on a visit there he but narrowly escaped suffering the penalty of death on a charge of contempt for the temple, which would show in how bad odour he had long been with many.

As regards all these details, however, we have no certain knowledge. The Acts of Paul, so far as known to us, already contained both truth and fiction. In no case did it claim to give in any sense a complete account of the doings and sufferings of the apostle in the years of his preaching activity. The principal source which underlies it, the journey narrative, the so-called 'We-source', is exceedingly scanty in its information. It says not much more, apart from what has been already indicated about the great Troas-Philippi-Troas-Rome journey, than that Paul, sometimes alone, sometimes in company with others, visited many regions, and preached in all of them for at least some days, in some cases for a longer period.

It does not appear that Paul's ideas differed widely from those of the other 'disciples', 1 or that he had emancipated himself from Judaism or had outgrown the law more than they. Rather do one or two expressions of the writer of the journey-narrative tend to justify the supposition that, in his circle, there was as yet no idea of any breach with Judaism. At any rate, the writer gives his dates by the Jewish calendar and speaks of the 'days of unleavened bread' (i.e. , after the passover), Acts 20:6, and of 'the fast' (i.e. , the great day of atonement in the end of September), 27:9. He is a 'disciple' among the 'disciples'. What he preaches is substantially nothing else than what their mind and heart are full of, 'the things concerning Jesus' (TO. irepl TOV Irjcrov).

It may be that Paul s journeyings, his protracted sojourn outside of Palestine, his intercourse in foreign parts with converted Jews and former heathen, may have emancipated him (as it did so many other Jews of the dispersion), without his knowing it, more or less - perhaps in essence completely - from circumcision and other Jewish religious duties, customs, and rites. But even so he had not broken with these. He had, like all the other disciples, remained in his own consciousness a Jew, a faithful attender of temple or synagogue, only in this one thing distinguished from the children of Abraham, that he held and preached 'the things concerning Jesus', and in connection with this devoted himself specially to a strict life and the promotion of mutual love. What afterwards became 'Paulinism', 'the theology of Paul', was not yet. Still less does it ever transpire that Paul was a writer of epistles of any importance ; least of all, of epistles so extensive and weighty as those now met with in the Canon. So also there is no word, nor any trace, of any essential difference as regards faith and life between him and other disciples. He is and remains their spiritual kinsman ; their 'brother', although moving in freedom and living for the most part in another circle.

For doubting, as is done by E. Johnson, the formerly anonymous writer of Antiqua Mater (1887), the historical existence of Paul and his activity as an itinerant preacher outside the limits of Palestine, there is no reason. Such doubt has no support in any ancient document, nor in anything in the journey-narrative that, in itself considered, ought to be regarded as improbable; on the other hand, it is sufficiently refuted by the universality of the tradition among all parties regarding Paul's life and work (cp Van Manen, Paulus, 1:192-200).

It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend has made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention ; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians ; the centre, at the same time, of a great movement in the line of the development of the faith and expectations of the first disciples ; the father of Paulinism - that system which, at first wholly unnoticed by the majority, or treated with scorn and contempt (cp 4, n. 2), soon met with general appreciation, and finally found world-wide fame, however at all times imperfectly understood.

It is difficult, or almost impossible, to indicate with distinctness how far Paul himself, by his personal influence and testimony, gave occasion for the formation of that which afterwards came to be associated with his name, and which thenceforward for centuries - indeed inseparably for all time, it might seem - has continued to be so conjoined, though very probably, if not certainly, it had another origin. We find ourselves here confronted with a question involving a problem similar to that relating to the connection between John, originally a simple fisherman of Galilee, one of the first disciples of Jesus, and John the Divine, the father of the illustrious Johannine school which speaks to us in the Fourth Gospel and in the three epistles bearing his name.

The following seems certain : Paul, of whom so little in detail is known, the artisan-preacher, who travelled so widely for the advancement and diffusion of those principles which, once he had embraced them, he held so dear, was portrayed in a no longer extant work which can most suitably be named after him Acts of Paul, based partly on legend, partly on a trustworthy tradition to which the well-known journey-narrative may be reckoned. There he comes before us, now enveloped in clouds and now standing out in clear light ; now a man among men, and now an ideal figure who is admired but not understood. At once the younger contemporary of the first disciples, and yet as it seems already reverentially placed at a distance apart from them; a 'disciple' like them, yet exercising his im mediate activity far outside their circle ; full of quite other thoughts ; in a special sense guided by the Holy Spirit ; a 'Christian' who bows the knee before the Son of God and is entrusted with 'the gospel of the grace of God' (Acts 20:24) ; in the main, perhaps, so far as his wanderings and outward fortunes are con cerned, drawn from the life, yet at the same time, even in that case, in such a manner that the reader at every point is conscious of inaccuracy and exaggeration, and finds himself compelled to withhold his assent where he comes across what is manifestly legendary.

So in the story of Paul's conversion, his seeing of Jesus in heaven, his hearing of Jesus voice, his receiving of a mandate from him (Acts 22:21, 26:16-18) ; the word to Ananias that he is to be instructed by Jesus himself and filled with the Holy Ghost (9:16-17) ; the representation of Paul as receiving visions and revelations (22:17-21, 16:9-10, 18:9-10, 27:23); the record of how he was wont to be led by the Holy Spirit (13:4, 16:6-7, 19:21, 20:22, 21:4, 21:10-12); the description of his controversy with Elymas Barjesus, whom he vanquishes and punishes with blindness (13:6-12); the healing of the lame man at Lystra and the deification that followed (14:8-18); the vision of the man of Macedonia at Troas (16:9) ; the casting out of the evil spirit at Philippi (16:16-18) ; the liberation from prison at the same place (16:25-34); the imparting of the Holy Ghost to disciples of the old school at Kphesus by the laying on of hands (19:1-7) ; the cures there wrought and castings out of evil spirits (19:11-12) , the vengeance of the evil spirit who recognises indeed the superiority of Paul, but not that of other men (19:16) ; the giving up and burning of precious books at Ephesus (19:19) ; perhaps also the affair of Eutychus at Troas (20:7-12), and the details respecting Paul s sojourn at Melita (28:1-10). 1

We are here already a good distance along the road upon which a younger generation, full of admiration for its great men, yet not too historically accurate, is moving, setting itself to describe the lives of Peter, Paul, Thomas, John, and others, in the so-called apocryphal Acts, or, more particularly (Gnostic), 'circuits' (IlepioSot [periodoi]).

Lk. also moves m the same direction, but with this difference, that his Paul (see Van Manen, Paulus, 1:164-169), under the influence of the current in which his spiritual life is lived, stands nearer again to Peter, yet in such a manner that it is still more impossible to present before one's mind an image of anything recorded of him among the often discrepant and mutually con flicting details, not a few of which are manifestly incorrect (id. l.c. 169-176).

The writer of the Acts of Paul never shows any acquaintance with epistles of Paul, however much one might expect the opposite when his way of thinking is taken into account. On the contrary, the 'historical details' in the epistles, or at least a good part of them, appear themselves to be taken from the Acts of Paul, since they are not always in agreement with what Lk. relates in his second book, although they are manifestly speaking of the same things. Lk. must have modified, rearranged, supplemented, perhaps also in some cases more accurately preserved, what he and the writers of the epistles had read in the book consulted by them, a work lost to us, or, if you will, surviving in a kind of second edition as the Acts of the Apostles. In this lost Acts of Paul, Paul had become (in contrast to what, even by the admission of the journey-narrative, he really was) the hero of a reforming movement, the exponent of wholly new principles in the circle of those who wrought for the emancipation of Christianity from the bonds of Judaism and its development into a universal religion.

Where that circle, under the patronage of Paul, must be looked for cannot be said with certainty. Probably it was in Syria, more particularly in Antioch ; yet it may have been somewhere in Asia Minor. We may be practically certain, at all events, that it was not in Palestine ; it was in an environment where no obstruction was in the first instance encountered from the Jews or, perhaps still worse, from the 'disciples' too closely resembling them ; where men as friends of gnosis, of speculation, and of mysticism, probably under the influence of Greek and, more especially, Alexandrian philosophy, had learned to cease to regard themselves as bound by tradition, and felt themselves free to extend their flight in every direction. To avail ourselves of a somewhat later expression : it was among the heretics. The epistles first came to be placed on the list among the gnostics. The oldest witnesses to their existence, as Meyer and other critics with a somewhat wonderful unanimity have been declaring for more than half a century, are Basilides, Valentinus, Heracleon. Marcion is the first in whom, as we learn from Tertullian, traces are to be found of an authoritative group of epistles of Paul. Tertullian still calls him 'haereticorum apostolus' (adv. Marc. 3:5) and (addressing Marcion) 'apostolus vester' (1:15).

Whencesoever coming, however, the Paulinism of the lost Acts of Paul and of our best authority for that way of thinking, our canonical epistles of Paul, is not the 'theology', the 'system' of the historical Paul, although it ultimately came to be, and in most quarters still is, identified with it. It is the later development of a school, or, if the expression is pre ferred, of a circle, of progressive believers who named themselves after Paul and placed themselves as it were under his aegis. The epistles explain this movement from different sides, apart from what some of them, by incorporating and working up older materials, tell us in addition as to its historical development and the varying contents of its doctrines.

i. Romans, with its account of what the gospel, regarded as a religious doctrine, is (1:18-ll:36), and of what those who profess it are exhorted to (12-15:13), throws a striking light upon what Paulinism is, both dogmatically and ethically, for the Christian faith and life.

ii. 1 Cor. shows in a special way how deeply and in what sense Paulinism has at heart the practice of the Christian life, as regards, for example, parties and disputes within the church (1:10-3:23), the valid authority in it (4), purity of morals (5 and 6:12-20), the judging of matters of dispute between Christians (6:1-11), their mutual relations, such as those of the circumcised and the uncircumcised, of bondmen and freemen (7:18-24) i the married and the unmarried life (8-11:1), the veiling of women (11:2-15 [11:2-11:16]), the love feasts (11:17-34), spiritual gifts (12-14), and the collection for the saints (16:1-4), along with which only one subject of a more doctrinal nature is treated : the resurrection (15).

iii. 2 Cor. gives above all else the impression how the person and work of Paul in the circle addressed, or, rather, through out the Christian world, had to be defended and glorified (1:3-7, 1:16, 10-13:10) ; and, in a passage introduced between its two main portions, how the manifestation of mutual love, by the gathering of collections for the saints, must not be neglected (8-9)

iv. Gal. gives us an earnest argument on behalf of Paul and the view of Christianity set forth by him, particularly his doctrine of justification by faith, not by the works of the law ; as also for the necessity for a complete breach with Judaism.

v. In Eph. it is the edification of 'Pauline' Christians that comes most into prominence. So also in Phil., although here we have also a bitter attack on the apostle's enemies, and, in close connection with this, a glorification of his person and work (3:1-4:1). In Col., along with edification and exhortation, the doctrinal significance of Christ is expatiated upon (1:13-22, 2:11-15); also that of 'Paul' (1:23-2:5) ; and an earnest warning is given against doctrinal errors (2:6-23).

vi. In i and 2 Thess. , respectively, the condition of those who have fallen asleep (1 Thess. 4:13-18) and the exact time of the parousia (5:1-11) on the one hand, and the things which may yet have to precede that event (2 Thess. 2:1-12), on the other, are discussed.

vii. The Pastoral Epistles occupy themselves chiefly with the various affairs of the churches within 'Pauline' circles ; Philemon with the relations which ought to subsist between slaves and their masters in the same circles.

Here we have variety enough, and many historical traits which, otice arranged in proper order, can supply us with a conception of what Paul, through all the vicissitudes of earnest opposition and equally earnest support among Christians, finally became first in narrower, anon in wider circles, and at last in the whole catholic world - the apostle (6 ATrocrroXos [o apostolos]), the equal of Peter, or, strictly speaking, his superior.

At the outset we find Paul standing outside the circle of the Catholic church just coming into being, but held in honour by Marcion and his followers. Already however, Lk. in virtue of the right he exercises of curtailing, expanding, modifying aught that may not suit his purpose in the material he has derived from other sources, has in Acts given 'Paul' a position of pre-eminence. Older fragments, whether of the nature of 'acts' or of the nature of 'epistles', that had passed into circulation under Paul's name were, in whole or in part, taken up into writings on a larger scale, and remodelled into what are now our canonical 'Epistles of Paul'. A Justin can still, it would seem, pass him over, although spiritually Justin stands very close to Paul and shows acquaintance with him. Irenaeus in his turn has no difficulty in using the Pauline group of Epistles, at least twelve of the thirteen - Philemon is not spoken of, nor is there as yet any word of Hebrews - as canonical, although not from predilection for their contents, but simply because he wishes to vanquish his great enemies, the gnostics, with their own weapons. That in doing so he frequently had failed to understand 'Paul' is clearly manifest (see Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus, 1889). Tertullian advances along the path opened by Irenaeus. Without really having much heart for the Paul of the Pauline Epistles, he brings out the 'apostle of the heretics' against the heretics, though, as regards 'history', he holds to the older view that Christianity owed its diffusion among the nations to the activity of the Twelve. In association with these in their solitary greatness no one deserves for a moment to be mentioned, not even the historical Paul, unless, indeed, as their somewhat younger contemporary, 'posterior apostolus', who might be regarded as having sat at their feet (adv. Marc. 4:2 52; see van Manen, Paulus, 2:262-276). In the so-called Muratorian Canon, among the authoritative writings of the NT, thirteen epistles of Paul are enumerated. Apollonius, about the year 210, brings it against the Montanist Themiso as a particularly serious charge that some forty years previously he had ventured to write an epistle in imitation of the apostle (fjufnov/j.fvos rbv AiroffroXoif [mimoumenos ton apostolon]; i.e., Paul; Eus. HE 5:18:5). In truth, from that time onwards, in orthodox circles no one doubted any longer the high authority of 'Paul' the assumed writer of the thirteen (fourteen) epistles. It was only with regard to Hebrews that a few continued to hesitate for some time longer.

For our knowledge of Paulinism the thirteen epistles are of inestimable value. They are, when thus regarded, no less important than they were when they were considered - all of them, or some of them - as unimpeachable witnesses for the life and activities, especially the Christian thoughts and feelings, of the historical Paul, the only slightly younger contemporary of Peter and other original disciples of Jesus.

In a complete study of Paulinism there come into consideration also Heb., 1 Pet., Ja. and other writings which breathe more or less the same spirit, or, as the case may be, take a polemical attitude towards it.

i. Hebrews, as being the expression of an interesting variation from the older Paulinism ; a doctrinal treatise, rich in earnest exhortations, given forth as a 'word of exhortation' (Ad yos TTJS jrapa/cATJtreujs, 13 22) in the form of an Epistle of Paul, though not bearing his name.

ii. i Pet., as being a remarkable evidence of attachment to 'Paul' among people who know that the group of letters associated with his name is closed, although they desire to bear witness in his spirit ; in point of fact, a letter of consolation written for those who stand exposed to persecution and suffering.

iii. James, as an instance of seriously-meant imitation of a Pauline epistle, written by some one who had misunderstood and was seeking to controvert Paul's view of the connection between faith and works ( 2:14-26).

On the other hand, there is a great deal that must be regarded as the product of a later time, and, however closely associated with the name of Paul, as lying beyond the scope of the present article.

i. (a) Epistle to the Laodicean's. - Antiquity knew of such an epistle, alongside of (b) the epistle ad Alexandrines, mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (63-65) with the words added 'Pauli nomine fictae ad haeresem Marcionis', 'feigned in the name of Paul to the use of the heresy of Marcion'. This epistle to the Laodiceans, mentioned also in Jerome ( Vir. 111. 5, and elsewhere) was very probably our Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, just as that to the Alexandrians was probably our Epistle to the Hebrews, or, it may be, a Marcionite redaction of it.

(c) Another Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans occurs in many Latin MSS of the NT, and in old printed editions of the NT; in Luther s Bible, Worms, 1529; in the Dutch of 1560 by L.D.K. - probably Leendert der Kinderen ; in 1600, after a copy by Nicolaus Biestkens van Diest ; in 1614, Dordrecht, Isaack Jansz. Canin ; and in English, cp Harnack, ACL 1(1893) 33-37. See, further, Anger, Ueber den Laodicenerbrief^iZ^), and Lightf. Colossians. 274, who also gives a convenient summary of the views which have been held respecting this letter (Hatch). The writing is composed of NT words of Paul, probably to meet the demand for an epistle to the Laodiceans raised by Col. 4:16, and actually dating from the fifth, perhaps even from the fourth century.

ii. An Epistle from the Corinthians to Paul and the apostle's answer ( = 3 Cor. ) which is brought into connection with the epistle named in 1 Cor. 5:9, were included in the Syrian Bible in the days of Aphraates and Ephraim, and centuries afterwards were still found in that of the Armenians.

They occur also in a MS of the Latin Bible dating from the fifteenth century and have been repeatedly printed, the best edition being that of Aucher (Armenian and English Grammar, 1819 p. 183). 'An English translation will be found in Stanley, Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 593' (Hatch). There are German and French translations in Rinck (1823) and Berger (1891). They appear to belong to the third century and are conjectured to have been written against the Bardesanites, originally in Greek or Syriac, perhaps as portions of the Acta Pauli. Cp Harnack, ACL 1:37-39 ; Kruger, ACL, 1895, p. n ; Nachtriigc, 1897, p. 10 ; also Sanday, above, CORINTHIANS, 19, 20 b.

iii. Fourteen epistles of Paul and Seneca are given in a number of later MSS ; first named and cited by Jerome, VT 12, although hardly by that time read by very many.

iv. Other special writings of a later date relating to Paul are found (apart from the Ebionite Acts of the Apostles already alluded to, mentioned by Epiphanius, Haer. 30:16, and the Acta Pauli = Ilai/Xoi; 7rpdeis [paulon praxeis] [also lost] mentioned by Origen, perhaps identical with the work called Pauli Praedicatio in Pseudo-Cyprian) in the Acts of Peter and Paul ; the Acts of Paul and Thecla ; the Apocalypse of Paul ; Ava/SariKoi Hai Xou [Anabatikon Paulon] mentioned in Epiphanius (see 2 Cor. 124 cp PR^ 1670).

The Acts of Peter and Paul, as also those of Paul and Thecla, are printed in Tischendorf (Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha denuo ediderunt R. A. Lipsius et M. Bonnet, 1, 1891 ; cp APOCRYPHA, 28, 2) ; the Revelation of Paul in Tischendorf (Apocalypses Apocryphae). [References to the literature of the Apocalypse of Paul in Lat. Syr. Gk. and Ar. will be found in Catalogue of Syr. MSS Univers. of Camb. (1901), p. n6 7 yC ET of all three by A. Walker, The Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, (1870).]

The best and most exhaustive discussion of the contents of these writings, alike with regard to Paul's life and activity, and with regard to his relation to Peter and other disciples of Jesus, though too exclusively under the influence of the Tubingen construction of history (see van Manen, Th. T, 1888, pp. 94-101), is given by R. A. Lipsius in his standard work - Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten u. Aposteltegenden, 1883- 1890 (reviewed in Th. T, 1883, pp. 377-393 ; 1884, pp. 598-611 ; 1888, pp. 93-108 ; 1891, pp. 450-451), with which cp also the Prolegomena to the second edition of the Acta i, 1891, and PRE^ 1664-666.

'The literature which bears upon St. Paul is so extensive that a complete account of it would be as much beyond the compass of this article as it would be bewildering to its readers'. So, rightly, Hatch at the close of his article Paul in Ency. Brit.P), 1885.

To these may be added C. C. Everett, The Gospel of Paul, 1893, and a number of other studies in books and periodicals; general works on Old Christianity, such as [W. R. Cassels] Supernatural Religion(), 3 vols. 1875-1877 ; R. J. Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, 1892; C. Weizsiicker, Das Apostol- ische Zeitalterl?), 1892, ET 1894-1895; J. B. Lightfoot, Disser tations on the Apostolic Age, 1892 ; F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 1898, and The Christian Ecclesia, 1898; O. Cone, Paul: the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher, 1898; the various works on New Testament Introduction, such as those of Credner (1836); Reuss, i8 74 ( ); ET, 1884; Bleek-Mangold, i8860*); Hilgenfeld, 1875 ; B. Weiss, 1897(8) ; ET, 1880, i88g(2) ; G. Salmon, 1896(7); S. Davidson, 1894^) ; H. T. Holtzmann, 1892(3); W. Bruckner, 1890; A. Julicher, 1901^); Th. Zahn, 1900(2) ; the commentaries on Acts and the Pauline Epistles, such as those in the later editions of Meyer, in the Hand-Corn- mcntarzum JV7 ((~) 1899^; Acts in () 1901), or in the Interna tional Critical Commentary (in which Romans [1895], Ephesians and Colossians [1897], Philippians and Philemon [1897], have already appeared); C. J. Ellicott, Crit. and Exeget. Comm.on St. Paul s Epistles [except Rom. and 2 Cor.], 1889-1890, etc., and cp the bibliographies in ACTS and the separate articles on the several epistles in this work. For advanced criticism see further the discussions already referred to( 34) by Bruno Bauer, Pierson, Naber, Loman, Steck, Volter, and van Manen.

The student who wishes further information upon the Pauline literature of recent years is recommended to consult the sections Apostelgeschichte und apostolisches Zeitalter and Paulus under the heading Literature of the New Testament in the Theologisches Jahresbericht (vol. xix., edited by Holtzmann and Kriiger, was published in 1900), which regularly, for the last nineteen years, has given a survey of the principal publica tionsmainly German, but not to the exclusion of foreign works of the preceding year. A selection of the most recent literature relating to Paul, which is to be from time to time revised and supplemented, will be found in a list of the best books for general New Testament study at the present time in The Bibli cal IVorld,^ July 1900, pp. 53-80. Cp Theological and Semitic Literature for the year iqoo, a Supplement to the American Journal of Theology, April 1901, especially the NT and The First Three Centuries, pp. 35-49.